Trashing the deal beforehand - even though if he gets all he wanted it would still be a poor offering - bad?
No, I didn't say that at all. Farage and the Leave trashing the deal beforehand is exactly what I'd expect. I'd do the same in their position.
Guys and gals, you are getting over-excited. One side makes claims. The other side makes the opposite claims. Both are largely bollocks. You have to look at the underlying situation from two points of view:
- Message - Substance
Leaving aside the substance, the mistake being widely made here is to think that the messages are aimed at the politically engaged, or the already-convinced on either side. They are not. In this case, not a single target voter will notice that the statement has been choreographed in advance, and they wouldn't care if they did notice.
Completely wrong. The people who will explain this deal to the public are the press, the hacks, the BBC (who broke this story, via Laura Kuenssberg). If the press decides that the deal is not only bad, but the politicians who confected it are ridiculous liars, then it will be negative for REMAIN.
I don't know that this is particularly embarrassing.
It's the laughably bad "deal" and hopelessly inept negotiating strategy from the PM that's embarrassing.
Of course it's not embarassing - no more so than denouncing the deal and negotiating strategy in advance.
'What happened was that I ignored the spin from both sides completely (in fact I didn't even read it), and I sat down and read the actual draft agreement as soon as it was published'
But Richard, we all know that even if the 'deal' contained absolutely nothing at all, you would still vote Remain. And that the PM would still recommend that as well.
Trashing the deal beforehand - even though if he gets all he wanted it would still be a poor offering - bad?
No, I didn't say that at all. Farage and the Leave trashing the deal beforehand is exactly what I'd expect. I'd do the same in their position.
Guys and gals, you are getting over-excited. One side makes claims. The other side makes the opposite claims. Both are largely bollocks. You have to look at the underlying situation from two points of view:
- Message - Substance
Leaving aside the substance, the mistake being widely made here is to think that the messages are aimed at the politically engaged, or the already-convinced on either side. They are not. In this case, not a single target voter will notice that the statement has been choreographed in advance, and they wouldn't care if they did notice.
Richard, while I agree with most of that analysis, I depart from you at the very end. The one thing that voters pretty much everywhere are excellent at picking up on (because it is a function of our reptilian, emotional brain which is always engaged, rather than our rational brain which, as you point out, it not engaged in politics for most people) is mendacity and inauthenticity. They hate both, except in exceptional circumstances.
This is what is so potentially damaging to Cameron and Remain from this process. If the impression sets in that they are using the power of government to be manipulative at best and outright lying at worst, then it will hugely damage their position in a way that is not easily reversed as it will have changed emotional and values-based beliefs (not knowledge) about Cameron and Remainers.
If the voters thought Cameron was a liar they'd have shown that in the GE. In general the voters don't like politicians - in that context Cameron does OK - recently I believe as many as 40% said they'd be influenced in deciding how to vote by DC.
But we are talking about current developments, not what was the impression of Cameron in the run up to the GE. I agree, he is starting from a relatively good position of trust, but trust can destroyed very quickly.
Yes we are - the general public couldn't be less interested at this point.
This is sent out even as the summit heads into an unprecedented third day. It's mortifying. A total gaffe. Cringe-making.
And you say this is "getting their act together". I'd hate to see what happens when they screw up. What do they do then? Personally explode on camera?
Sure, it's cringe making.
So what? These are not meant to be objective statements (if you want those, read my posts!)
First you claimed it was evidence of them "getting their act together." Now you admit it's cringe-making
The significance of this is that there is a meme floating around, that the entire deal is a charade, Cameron was going to recommend staying whatever he got, and he's just lying now, along with most of his party.
This stuff seriously reinforces that idea. And it's poisonous for REMAIN.
Sean: apart from you, Mr N and me and maybe a few others, no-one else is paying any attention to this.
The budget will likely have more impact on any referendum than anything coming out of Brussels. Cameron could just as easily lose this if Osborne screws over everyone's pensions and the middle classes decide to take their revenge.
I am fully expecting to be bent over the table and done over by George Osborne next month (without any Vaseline)
Not sure what I can do about it. My MP hasn't responsed to my email yet.
Trashing the deal beforehand - even though if he gets all he wanted it would still be a poor offering - bad?
No, I didn't say that at all. Farage and the Leave trashing the deal beforehand is exactly what I'd expect. I'd do the same in their position.
Guys and gals, you are getting over-excited. One side makes claims. The other side makes the opposite claims. Both are largely bollocks. You have to look at the underlying situation from two points of view:
- Message - Substance
Leaving aside the substance, the mistake being widely made here is to think that the messages are aimed at the politically engaged, or the already-convinced on either side. They are not. In this case, not a single target voter will notice that the statement has been choreographed in advance, and they wouldn't care if they did notice.
Richard, while I agree with most of that analysis, I depart from you at the very end. The one thing that voters pretty much everywhere are excellent at picking up on (because it is a function of our reptilian, emotional brain which is always engaged, rather than our rational brain which, as you point out, it not engaged in politics for most people) is mendacity and inauthenticity. They hate both, except in exceptional circumstances.
This is what is so potentially damaging to Cameron and Remain from this process. If the impression sets in that they are using the power of government to be manipulative at best and outright lying at worst, then it will hugely damage their position in a way that is not easily reversed as it will have changed emotional and values-based beliefs (not knowledge) about Cameron and Remainers.
If the voters thought Cameron was a liar they'd have shown that in the GE. In general the voters don't like politicians - in that context Cameron does OK - recently I believe as many as 40% said they'd be influenced in deciding how to vote by DC.
But we are talking about current developments, not what was the impression of Cameron in the run up to the GE. I agree, he is starting from a relatively good position of trust, but trust can destroyed very quickly.
Yes we are - the general public couldn't be less interested at this point.
That's my point. The general public does not have to be interested to be forming opinions on values and beliefs. It goes on subconsciously.
Trashing the deal beforehand - even though if he gets all he wanted it would still be a poor offering - bad?
No, I didn't say that at all. Farage and the Leave trashing the deal beforehand is exactly what I'd expect. I'd do the same in their position.
Guys and gals, you are getting over-excited. One side makes claims. The other side makes the opposite claims. Both are largely bollocks. You have to look at the underlying situation from two points of view:
- Message - Substance
Leaving aside the substance, the mistake being widely made here is to think that the messages are aimed at the politically engaged, or the already-convinced on either side. They are not. In this case, not a single target voter will notice that the statement has been choreographed in advance, and they wouldn't care if they did notice.
Richard, while I agree with most of that analysis, I depart from you at the very end. The one thing that voters pretty much everywhere are excellent at picking up on (because it is a function of our reptilian, emotional brain which is always engaged, rather than our rational brain which, as you point out, it not engaged in politics for most people) is mendacity and inauthenticity. They hate both, except in exceptional circumstances.
This is what is so potentially damaging to Cameron and Remain from this process. If the impression sets in that they are using the power of government to be manipulative at best and outright lying at worst, then it will hugely damage their position in a way that is not easily reversed as it will have changed emotional and values-based beliefs (not knowledge) about Cameron and Remainers.
If the voters thought Cameron was a liar they'd have shown that in the GE. In general the voters don't like politicians - in that context Cameron does OK - recently I believe as many as 40% said they'd be influenced in deciding how to vote by DC.
Oh god, the collective europhile IQ has dropped again.
Voters are losing faith in Cameron NOW. See his personal ratings. He's taking hits.
It doesn't matter what voters thought back in 2015, it's what they think of him now, as he tries to sell this "deal"
David Cameron strikes me as a man who has never found it neccessary to drive a hard bargain to buy a house, or a car... or anything - and it's showing now.
Now I know he's not to everyone's tastes, but can't we send Donald J Trump into bat as a substitute for us in the Euro negotiations ?
Maybe Cameron would have found the actual negotiations easier if he hadn't declared he wants to stay in the EU beforehand.
Announcing before the negotiations have even started that you are going to accept a deal is not a strategy that is likely to bring the best result.
You have to announce that you'll accept the right deal. Nobody negotiates a deal to buy a house without an underlying assumption that you want to accept a deal at the end of negotiations.
Mr. Thompson, in any field if the people you are negotiating with don't believe that you are prepared to walk away then you are going to get shafted. Cameron announced long ago that he was not prepared to walk away. He is in now in the process of trying to persuade our "partners" to give him a deal that he can pretend is good for the UK. He has already been knocked a long way back from what he originally said he wanted from these negotiations and is now in a face saving exercise and is struggling even with that.
Cameron is supposedly very clever but I doubt he would last two months in a senior position in any serious company.
I agree you need to be prepared to walk away, but has Cameron ever said he was not prepared to walk away? I thought he said the opposite, but that he did not believe he would have to walk away which is a very different thing.
Indeed I believe he said specifically he would walk away. The frothers on here however are not interested in listening - they have already made up their minds - see the hysterics earlier because some on the remain side have already made up their minds.
David Cameron strikes me as a man who has never found it neccessary to drive a hard bargain to buy a house, or a car... or anything - and it's showing now.
Now I know he's not to everyone's tastes, but can't we send Donald J Trump into bat as a substitute for us in the Euro negotiations ?
He's all piss and wind. You need a woman. Me, for instance. Deadly. Ruthless. Have never lost a case. And speak 4 European languages. Plus I could tease Hollande about Napoleon.
I was actually fantasising about this night.
How much better would a vote Leave panel be with you, Robert Smithson, Charles, and DavidL?
If you were short-handed, I'd be happy to join you.
If you wanted to juice things up a bit you could call SeanT and Marquee Mark onto the stage for a turn.
That's very kind. I can say that in 25 years negotiating contracts, I never failed to close a deal I wanted to do. (Killed a few I hated!)
I used to have to knock on doors of people who had no idea who my company were, trying to get a foot in the door when our tech guys saw an exploration opportunity they liked. I was renowned for my "Irish Mafia Routine" - make them an offer they can't understand. As soon as you've got them going "Eh???" you've got them intrigued.
For all the criticism we get from the likes of Mr.Meeks as "frothers", the vast number of regular Leave posters on here are successful and highly educated professionals and businessmen/women in their own right.
Plus they have more balls than the whole Cabinet put together, with a few honourable exceptions.
I wonder what other PBers' favorite books are. I would have a very hard time choosing, but Candide must be right up there.
Candide is a good un.
my user name is a tribute to one of my favourites - Flann O"Brien"s The Third Policeman. I love most of his work, apart from the bits in Irish and Greek which I can&t read...
by the way, have any PBers read either Haile Selassie"s autobiography or any biographies of the fellow? any recommendations?
I would be significantly surprised if Cameron walked away and recommended we Leave. I think he'd prefer a delay to give Remain a better chance of winning, if no deal could be struck.
Cameron's leading the country into the position Byzantium suffered when it became the site of a proxy trade war between Genoa and Venice. And it's voluntary.
Biggest turn around in a leader's public esteem since Heraclius, perhaps.
Oh dear you've come over all classical again. All politicians ratings are low - I believe Farron is currently least worst in the public mind. I've heard again and again over the last 5 years about how crap Cameron was - guess who's the PM now. Truth is Jo Public don't mind him - it's as good as it gets.
Mr. Thompson, worth noting there are two versions of walking away. There's recommending Leave, and there's delaying (walking from the summit without a deal).
David Cameron strikes me as a man who has never found it neccessary to drive a hard bargain to buy a house, or a car... or anything - and it's showing now.
Now I know he's not to everyone's tastes, but can't we send Donald J Trump into bat as a substitute for us in the Euro negotiations ?
Maybe Cameron would have found the actual negotiations easier if he hadn't declared he wants to stay in the EU beforehand.
Announcing before the negotiations have even started that you are going to accept a deal is not a strategy that is likely to bring the best result.
You have to announce that you'll accept the right deal. Nobody negotiates a deal to buy a house without an underlying assumption that you want to accept a deal at the end of negotiations.
Mr. Thompson, in any field if the people you are negotiating with don't believe that you are prepared to walk away then you are going to get shafted. Cameron announced long ago that he was not prepared to walk away. He is in now in the process of trying to persuade our "partners" to give him a deal that he can pretend is good for the UK. He has already been knocked a long way back from what he originally said he wanted from these negotiations and is now in a face saving exercise and is struggling even with that.
Cameron is supposedly very clever but I doubt he would last two months in a senior position in any serious company.
I agree you need to be prepared to walk away, but has Cameron ever said he was not prepared to walk away? I thought he said the opposite, but that he did not believe he would have to walk away which is a very different thing.
2012
"I will never campaign to leave the EU" - David Cameron
On Nov 7 Cameron said status quo not an option and Britain might withdraw if the EU does not give ground. 'We will have to think again if this European Union is right for us'. (My source is the guardian, but cannot post link) no doubt there are other occasions he has said the same sort of thing.
But Richard, we all know that even if the 'deal' contained absolutely nothing at all, you would still vote Remain. And that the PM would still recommend that as well.
Yes, I would. Indeed I posted here before the draft agreement was published, that I'd pretty much made up my mind. I've also explained why: the EEA route unambiguously gives less protection for the City and doesn't address the principal concern which is immigration, and no other plausible route has been identified. At the same time the cost of a transition is high. So of course I'm voting Remain.
If the Leavers and would-be Leavers had spent the last three years addressing these points, rather than insulting those of us who were unconvinced, accusing us of lying, flinging around idiotic 'Europhile' nonsense, and trying (in the case of UKIP) to put Ed Miliband into No 10, then perhaps a coherent alternative plan would have emerged. Richard T posted some interesting pointers to that yesterday, but it's a bit late. I'm not going to be convinced by a blog-post written by Richard North. (This is not a dig at Richard North personally, just that his assertions need some heavyweight scrutiny by people who know about international law and trade relations).
Mr. Felix, actually, Heraclius (arguably the most tragic of emperors, though I might give it to Constantine Dragases) was 7th century, and the Venice/Genoa business was centuries later, so it's Middle Ages, not classical.
I know Heraclius is obscure, alas, but the Venice/Genoa business perhaps shouldn't be confused for antiquity.
It's also worth noting I've been generally pro-Cameron (not on Defence, aid or green nonsense, but on most other things) for his entire time as PM and Leader of the Opposition. My antagonism towards him now isn't personal, it's based on his feeble conduct.
Miss Cyclefree, Animal Farm is fantastic, far better than 1984.
David Cameron strikes me as a man who has never found it neccessary to drive a hard bargain to buy a house, or a car... or anything - and it's showing now.
Now I know he's not to everyone's tastes, but can't we send Donald J Trump into bat as a substitute for us in the Euro negotiations ?
Announcing before the negotiations have even started that you are going to accept a deal is not a strategy that is likely to bring the best result.
You have to announce that you'll accept the right deal. Nobody negotiates a deal to buy a house without an underlying assumption that you want to accept a deal at the end of negotiations.
Cameron is supposedly very clever but I doubt he would last two months in a senior position in any serious company.
I agree you need to be prepared to walk away, but has Cameron ever said he was not prepared to walk away? I thought he said the opposite, but that he did not believe he would have to walk away which is a very different thing.
Unfortunately, our EU partners are a little smarter than you (OK it's not hard) and they can google back before 2014 and find Cameron saying, many times, that he would never take the UK out of the EU.
Also they can read the independent from last year.
"EU referendum: David Cameron will never campaign to leave the bloc, says Lord Heseltine"
David Cameron strikes me as a man who has never found it neccessary to drive a hard bargain to buy a house, or a car... or anything - and it's showing now.
Now I know he's not to everyone's tastes, but can't we send Donald J Trump into bat as a substitute for us in the Euro negotiations ?
He'd say the Channel isn't enough to protect us - we need a wall as well....
Trashing the deal beforehand - even though if he gets all he wanted it would still be a poor offering - bad?
No, I didn't say that at all. Farage and the Leave trashing the deal beforehand is exactly what I'd expect. I'd do the same in their position.
Guys and gals, you are getting over-excited. One side makes claims. The other side makes the opposite claims. Both are largely bollocks. You have to look at the underlying situation from two points of view:
- Message - Substance
Leaving aside the substance, the mistake being widely made here is to think that the messages are aimed at the politically engaged, or the already-convinced on either side. They are not. In this case, not a single target voter will notice that the statement has been choreographed in advance, and they wouldn't care if they did notice.
Richard, while I agree with most of that analysis, I depart from you at the very end. The one thing that voters pretty much everywhere are excellent at picking up on (because it is a function of our reptilian, emotional brain which is always engaged, rather than our rational brain which, as you point out, it not engaged in politics for most people) is mendacity and inauthenticity. They hate both, except in exceptional circumstances.
This is what is so potentially damaging to Cameron and Remain from this process. If the impression sets in that they are using the power of government to be manipulative at best and outright lying at worst, then it will hugely damage their position in a way that is not easily reversed as it will have changed emotional and values-based beliefs (not knowledge) about Cameron and Remainers.
If the voters thought Cameron was a liar they'd have shown that in the GE. In general the voters don't like politicians - in that context Cameron does OK - recently I believe as many as 40% said they'd be influenced in deciding how to vote by DC.
But we are talking about current developments, not what was the impression of Cameron in the run up to the GE. I agree, he is starting from a relatively good position of trust, but trust can destroyed very quickly.
Yes we are - the general public couldn't be less interested at this point.
Sounds like the Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph/Times are making a BIG mistake splashing this issue all over the front page.
Nobody's interested.
And as for those TV stations running it wall to wall, how do they sell ad space?
Trashing the deal beforehand - even though if he gets all he wanted it would still be a poor offering - bad?
No, I didn't say that at all. Farage and the Leave trashing the deal beforehand is exactly what I'd expect. I'd do the same in their position.
Guys and gals, you are getting over-excited. One side makes claims. The other side makes the opposite claims. Both are largely bollocks. You have to look at the underlying situation from two points of view:
- Message - Substance
Leaving aside the substance, the mistake being widely made here is to think that the messages are aimed at the politically engaged, or the already-convinced on either side. They are not. In this case, not a single target voter will notice that the statement has been choreographed in advance, and they wouldn't care if they did notice.
Richard, while I agree with most of that analysis, I depart from you at the very end. The one thing that voters pretty much everywhere are excellent at picking up on (because it is a function of our reptilian, emotional brain which is always engaged, rather than our rational brain which, as you point out, it not engaged in politics for most people) is mendacity and inauthenticity. They hate both, except in exceptional circumstances.
This is what is so potentially damaging to Cameron and Remain from this process. If the impression sets in that they are using the power of government to be manipulative at best and outright lying at worst, then it will hugely damage their position in a way that is not easily reversed as it will have changed emotional and values-based beliefs (not knowledge) about Cameron and Remainers.
If the voters thought Cameron was a liar they'd have shown that in the GE. In general the voters don't like politicians - in that context Cameron does OK - recently I believe as many as 40% said they'd be influenced in deciding how to vote by DC.
Oh god, the collective europhile IQ has dropped again.
Voters are losing faith in Cameron NOW. See his personal ratings. He's taking hits.
It doesn't matter what voters thought back in 2015, it's what they think of him now, as he tries to sell this "deal"
So I say "Peak Cameron" now, or should I have said it before he started doing badly?
I agree you need to be prepared to walk away, but has Cameron ever said he was not prepared to walk away? I thought he said the opposite, but that he did not believe he would have to walk away which is a very different thing.
But Cameron said some years ago that he could not conceive of the circumstances in which the UK would be better off outside the EU. Cameron, as befits his class and status, is a committed Europhile. The referendum was granted as a matter of party political expediency, with, I think, the full intention of doing a Wilson. His problems stem from his basic dishonesty - if he had been serious and been prepared to walk away then he wouldn't be where he is today.
David Cameron strikes me as a man who has never found it neccessary to drive a hard bargain to buy a house, or a car... or anything - and it's showing now.
Now I know he's not to everyone's tastes, but can't we send Donald J Trump into bat as a substitute for us in the Euro negotiations ?
He's all piss and wind. You need a woman. Me, for instance. Deadly. Ruthless. Have never lost a case. And speak 4 European languages. Plus I could tease Hollande about Napoleon.
For all the criticism we get from the likes of Mr.Meeks as "frothers", the vast number of regular Leave posters on here are successful and highly educated professionals and businessmen/women in their own right.
Plus they have more balls than the whole Cabinet put together, with a few honourable exceptions.
Oh dear - here we go again - parading your qualifications and experience. Who wouldn't trust a 'successful and highly educated professional and businessman'?
Trashing the deal beforehand - even though if he gets all he wanted it would still be a poor offering - bad?
No, I didn't say that at all. Farage and the Leave trashing the deal beforehand is exactly what I'd expect. I'd do the same in their position.
Guys and gals, you are getting over-excited. One side makes claims. The other side makes the opposite claims. Both are largely bollocks. You have to look at the underlying situation from two points of view:
- Message - Substance
Leaving aside the substance, the mistake being widely made here is to think that the messages are aimed at the politically engaged, or the already-convinced on either side. They are not. In this case, not a single target voter will notice that the statement has been choreographed in advance, and they wouldn't care if they did notice.
Completely wrong. The people who will explain this deal to the public are the press, the hacks, the BBC (who broke this story, via Laura Kuenssberg). If the press decides that the deal is not only bad, but the politicians who confected it are ridiculous liars, then it will be negative for REMAIN.
I don't know that this is particularly embarrassing.
It's the laughably bad "deal" and hopelessly inept negotiating strategy from the PM that's embarrassing.
Of course it's not embarassing - no more so than denouncing the deal and negotiating strategy in advance.
It makes a lot of sense to denounce in advance a negotiating strategy if it is set up to be ineffective, regardless of the substance of the goals.
Claiming victory before the deal is sealed is damaging - just ask George Bush. Mission Accomplished, indeed
I agree you need to be prepared to walk away, but has Cameron ever said he was not prepared to walk away? I thought he said the opposite, but that he did not believe he would have to walk away which is a very different thing.
But Cameron said some years ago that he could not conceive of the circumstances in which the UK would be better off outside the EU. Cameron, as befits his class and status, is a committed Europhile. The referendum was granted as a matter of party political expediency, with, I think, the full intention of doing a Wilson. His problems stem from his basic dishonesty - if he had been serious and been prepared to walk away then he wouldn't be where he is today.
And he has said repeatedly since the referendum was called that he was prepared to walk away and Leave the EU.
What precisely more do you think he should have done. Of course he wasn't saying we should leave before he called the referendum, he didn't think that and if he did say that he'd have to campaign to get us to leave. But since the referendum has called he's said repeatedly we could leave.
You seem to think he should have got a Delorean or Tardis to change statements made before the referendum decision was made rather than judge him on what was said ever since it was.
Mr. Felix, actually, Heraclius (arguably the most tragic of emperors, though I might give it to Constantine Dragases) was 7th century, and the Venice/Genoa business was centuries later, so it's Middle Ages, not classical.
I know Heraclius is obscure, alas, but the Venice/Genoa business perhaps shouldn't be confused for antiquity.
It's also worth noting I've been generally pro-Cameron (not on Defence, aid or green nonsense, but on most other things) for his entire time as PM and Leader of the Opposition. My antagonism towards him now isn't personal, it's based on his feeble conduct.
Miss Cyclefree, Animal Farm is fantastic, far better than 1984.
Edited extra bit: correcting a typo.
Apologies - you are polite but you too seem to have prejudged an unfinished process.
Serious question. Do you truly, honestly believe Cameron seriously entertained the idea of Leading Britain out of the EU? Really? Or are you just trolling?
I cannot believe any pb-ers would be that dim. Bit disappointing, tbh.
No. However he has said he was prepared to, but since I "truly, honestly" always believed Cameron would get the deal he was seeking I never thought he'd need to opt to leave.
David Cameron strikes me as a man who has never found it neccessary to drive a hard bargain to buy a house, or a car... or anything - and it's showing now.
Now I know he's not to everyone's tastes, but can't we send Donald J Trump into bat as a substitute for us in the Euro negotiations ?
He'd say the Channel isn't enough to protect us - we need a wall as well....
Running from Carlisle to Newcastle?
How very sad that you use this opportunity to take a cheap shot at our Scottish neighbours. Beneath you even as a not very funny joke, but once again it shows the febrile undertones being generated by the out of EU campaign.
Trashing the deal beforehand - even though if he gets all he wanted it would still be a poor offering - bad?
No, I didn't say that at all. Farage and the Leave trashing the deal beforehand is exactly what I'd expect. I'd do the same in their position.
Guys and gals, you are getting over-excited. One side makes claims. The other side makes the opposite claims. Both are largely bollocks. You have to look at the underlying situation from two points of view:
- Message - Substance
Leaving aside the substance, the mistake being widely made here is to think that the messages are aimed at the politically engaged, or the already-convinced on either side. They are not. In this case, not a single target voter will notice that the statement has been choreographed in advance, and they wouldn't care if they did notice.
Completely wrong. The people who will explain this deal to the public are the press, the hacks, the BBC (who broke this story, via Laura Kuenssberg). If the press decides that the deal is not only bad, but the politicians who confected it are ridiculous liars, then it will be negative for REMAIN.
I don't know that this is particularly embarrassing.
It's the laughably bad "deal" and hopelessly inept negotiating strategy from the PM that's embarrassing.
Of course it's not embarassing - no more so than denouncing the deal and negotiating strategy in advance.
You can certainly denounce the negotiating strategy in advance - as has been borne out.
We'll see what the final deal is, but the initial proposal was rubbish, and subsequent moves have worsened it. It's the negotiation equivalent of serving cold porridge, then sprinkling dog biscuits on it.
Mr. Felix, actually, Heraclius (arguably the most tragic of emperors, though I might give it to Constantine Dragases) was 7th century, and the Venice/Genoa business was centuries later, so it's Middle Ages, not classical.
I know Heraclius is obscure, alas, but the Venice/Genoa business perhaps shouldn't be confused for antiquity.
It's also worth noting I've been generally pro-Cameron (not on Defence, aid or green nonsense, but on most other things) for his entire time as PM and Leader of the Opposition. My antagonism towards him now isn't personal, it's based on his feeble conduct.
Miss Cyclefree, Animal Farm is fantastic, far better than 1984.
Edited extra bit: correcting a typo.
In my top 10 non-fiction books I would include pretty much anything by Norman Lewis but his autobiography Jackdaw Cake and Naples'44 are must reads and Orwell's essays.
William Trevor's short stories would also be in my Top 10 Fiction books. An outstanding writer. Far better than most Booker prize nonentities. John McGahern is another very fine writer. Brian Friel for plays. If you ever get the chance to see Translations on stage, do go.
Let's just put this to bed. It's absurd. The whole world knows that Cameron would never, under any conceivable circumstances, campaign for an OUT vote. I imagine that even Richard Nabavi, if forced, would admit the truth of that.
It's a futile non-argument.
And yet you are going on and on and on and on - not sure who you're trying to convince - and on and on and on....
I wonder what other PBers' favorite books are. I would have a very hard time choosing, but Candide must be right up there.
Four in my top 10 novels are:-
- Vanity Fair - Anna Karenina - Jane Eyre - Animal Farm
I have yet to read Vanity Fair - not sure why. Yes, Orwell has to be in the top 10, and Animal Farm would edge out 1984 for me.
Brave New World, Brazzaville Beach, Remembering Argentina and The Unbearable Lightness of Being would be in my top ten. I guess I am a depressed sort of dystopian guy.
The whole world knows that Cameron would never, under any conceivable circumstances, campaign for an OUT vote. I imagine that even Richard Nabavi, if forced, would admit the truth of that..
I don't need to be forced. I've said as much many times.
Cameron's position is exactly what he says it is, which is much the same as mine. He's frustrated by a lot of the faults of the EU, would much prefer it to be more of a looser arrangement focused on trade, doesn't want ever-closer union, etc etc. Read his excellent Bloomberg speech for the vision.
But it's not in his power to magic that into existence. Blair and Brown threw away most of the bargaining chips. We start from where we are.
Let's just put this to bed. It's absurd. The whole world knows that Cameron would never, under any conceivable circumstances, campaign for an OUT vote. I imagine that even Richard Nabavi, if forced, would admit the truth of that.
It's a futile non-argument.
Again before the referendum was called. Get a quote from after he called the referendum where he has said the same thing.
Of course what he said beforehand is public record. It's not possible to change that either, anyone who has only just discovered that Cameron said before he called the referendum that he opposed leaving has not been paying attention. The issue is what has been said SINCE calling it.
David Cameron strikes me as a man who has never found it neccessary to drive a hard bargain to buy a house, or a car... or anything - and it's showing now.
Now I know he's not to everyone's tastes, but can't we send Donald J Trump into bat as a substitute for us in the Euro negotiations ?
Announcing before the negotiations have even started that you are going to accept a deal is not a strategy that is likely to bring the best result.
You have to announce that you'll accept the right deal. Nobody negotiates a deal to buy a house without an underlying assumption that you want to accept a deal at the end of negotiations.
Cameron is supposedly very clever but I doubt he would last two months in a senior position in any serious company.
I agree you need to be prepared to walk away, but has Cameron ever said he was not prepared to walk away? I thought he said the opposite, but that he did not believe he would have to walk away which is a very different thing.
Indeed I bee already made up their minds.
PB: Cameron has said he'll accept anything.
Unfortunately, our EU partners are a little smarter than you (OK it's not hard) and they can google back before 2014 and find Cameron saying, many times, that he would never take the UK out of the EU.
Also they can read the independent from last year.
"EU referendum: David Cameron will never campaign to leave the bloc, says Lord Heseltine"
Lord Heseltine is such a neutral source in EU matters isn't he? Come off it.
Cameron has said many, many times over recent years that he is willing to Leave if he can't get a deal.
Serious question. Do you truly, honestly believe Cameron seriously entertained the idea of Leading Britain out of the EU? Really? Or are you just trolling?
I cannot believe any pb-ers would be that dim. Bit disappointing, tbh.
Having an opinion and sticking to it is the ultimate fox pazz for PR lovin' centrists.. they love to think of themselves as unbiased "blank slates" rather than the dirty "commited"
The whole world knows that Cameron would never, under any conceivable circumstances, campaign for an OUT vote. I imagine that even Richard Nabavi, if forced, would admit the truth of that..
I don't need to be forced. I've said as much many times.
Cameron's position is exactly what he says it is, which is much the same as mine. He's frustrated by a lot of the faults of the EU, would much prefer it to be more of a looser arrangement focused on trade, doesn't want ever-closer union, etc etc. Read his excellent Bloomberg speech for the vision.
But it's not in his power to magic that into existence. Blair and Brown threw away most of the bargaining chips. We start from where we are.
Both you and Mr Thompson are saints compared with me. Admittedly that's not saying very much but its meant as a compliment.
Trashing the deal beforehand - even though if he gets all he wanted it would still be a poor offering - bad?
No, I didn't say that at all. Farage and the Leave trashing the deal beforehand is exactly what I'd expect. I'd do the same in their position.
Guys and gals, you are getting over-excited. One side makes claims. The other side makes the opposite claims. Both are largely bollocks. You have to look at the underlying situation from two points of view:
- Message - Substance
Leaving aside the substance, the mistake being widely made here is to think that the messages are aimed at the politically engaged, or the already-convinced on either side. They are not. In this case, not a single target voter will notice that the statement has been choreographed in advance, and they wouldn't care if they did notice.
Completely wrong. The people who will explain this deal to the public are the press, the hacks, the BBC (who broke this story, via Laura Kuenssberg). If the press decides that the deal is not only bad, but the politicians who confected it are ridiculous liars, then it will be negative for REMAIN.
I don't know that this is particularly embarrassing.
It's the laughably bad "deal" and hopelessly inept negotiating strategy from the PM that's embarrassing.
Of course it's not embarassing - no more so than denouncing the deal and negotiating strategy in advance.
You can certainly denounce the negotiating strategy in advance - as has been borne out.
My money is still on the so-called "deal" being miraculously agreed in a few hours, with "sources" informing the papers that Cameron refused to leave the table until he'd bled all the concessions ("concessions" meaning the already very feeble terms that were agreed weeks ago) from the other leaders.
In reality, the most contentious moment of today's summit was probably Hollande teaming up with the Greek and Italian leaders, to force Angela and Dave to take off Hunger Games and bung in a Friends DVD instead. While the "deal", having been signed and stamped last night, continues to gather dust.
We'll see what the final deal is, but the initial proposal was rubbish, and subsequent moves have worsened it. It's the negotiation equivalent of serving cold porridge, then sprinkling dog biscuits on it.
David Cameron strikes me as a man who has never found it neccessary to drive a hard bargain to buy a house, or a car... or anything - and it's showing now.
Now I know he's not to everyone's tastes, but can't we send Donald J Trump into bat as a substitute for us in the Euro negotiations ?
Announcing before the negotiations have even started that you are going to accept a deal is not a strategy that is likely to bring the best result.
You have to announce that you'll accept the right deal. Nobody negotiates a deal to buy a house without an underlying assumption that you want to accept a deal at the end of negotiations.
Cameron is supposedly very clever but I doubt he would last two months in a senior position in any serious company.
I agree you need to be prepared to walk away, but has Cameron ever said he was not prepared to walk away? I thought he said the opposite, but that he did not believe he would have to walk away which is a very different thing.
Indeed I bee already made up their minds.
PB: Cameron has said he'll accept anything.
Unfortunately, our EU partners are a little smarter than you (OK it's not hard) and they can google back before 2014 and find Cameron saying, many times, that he would never take the UK out of the EU.
Also they can read the independent from last year.
"EU referendum: David Cameron will never campaign to leave the bloc, says Lord Heseltine"
Lord Heseltine is such a neutral source in EU matters isn't he? Come off it.
Cameron has said many, many times over recent years that he is willing to Leave if he can't get a deal.
Serious question. Do you truly, honestly believe Cameron seriously entertained the idea of Leading Britain out of the EU? Really? Or are you just trolling?
I cannot believe any pb-ers would be that dim. Bit disappointing, tbh.
Having an opinion and sticking to it is the ultimate fox pazz for PR lovin' centrists.. they love to think of themselves as unbiased "blank slates" rather than the dirty "commited"
Right - we should never have repealed the corn laws - the rot started there
I wonder what other PBers' favorite books are. I would have a very hard time choosing, but Candide must be right up there.
Four in my top 10 novels are:-
- Vanity Fair - Anna Karenina - Jane Eyre - Animal Farm
Seriously, Mrs Free? Such highbrow stuff? Makes me look such a pleb but the books that have given me the greatest pleasure and which I have read many times over the years are
- Red Storm Rising (Tom Clancy) - Catch 22 (Joseph Heller) - Flashman in the Great Game (George macDonald Fraser) - Don Camillio, 1955 Omnibus Edition (Giovanni Guareschi) - Just about anything by P.G. Wodehouse
So pb's europhiles now admit that David Cameron would never campaign to leave the EU, yet still claim his negotiations to reform the EU are going well, thanks to his recent threat to leave the EU, which everyone in the entire world knows is a stupid lie, because he would never campaign to leave the EU, despite his own threats otherwise.
OK. Now we can move on.
If only ... why don't you try twitter? Maybe Tim late of this parish would listen.
Stupid case and surely a case well above a local judge's paygrade.
It has to start somewhere, even with a local law student who marks his own papers...
Cruz is naturally an alien, in need of naturalization, which he may indeed have obtained.
Therefore, not a natural born citizen.
Cruz was never naturalised, he was born with citizenship from his parent. Therefore, a natural born citizen.
Tosh. He was naturalized at birth, under a statute enacted under Congress's power to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, without which he would be still be an alien. Like Winston Churchill, who remained an alien until Congress passed a special bill making him an honorary citizen in 1963, there being no equivalent statute at the time of Churchill's birth. Churchill was never an NBC, despite, like Cruz, having an American mother...
All logic, history, and more importantly, every SCOTUS opinion on the matter confirms the position.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898) (one born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, not being a citizen at common law can only be a naturalized citizen through a naturalization Act of Congress and that if it were not for a naturalization Act of Congress, he or she would be an alien and not a citizen)
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961) (if a child is not born in the country, the child needs a naturalization Act to make that child for all intents and purposes a citizen and without such naturalization the child would be an alien)
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) (a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be a citizen of the United States only if Congress allows it through one of its naturalization Acts and such person therefore becomes a citizen of the United States “at birth” through naturalization without which the person would be an alien)
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (“There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.”).
Even leaving aside the deal as is and assuming it magically becomes brilliant, I just don't trust the EU to keep its word.
Ah now I'm closer to you - except the EU is not noticeably worse in this respect than any other institution. And if they don't there's sfa they can do to prevent the UK walking away.
So pb's europhiles now admit that David Cameron would never campaign to leave the EU, yet still claim his negotiations to reform the EU are going well, thanks to his recent threat to leave the EU, which everyone in the entire world knows is a stupid lie, because he would never campaign to leave the EU, despite his own threats otherwise.
OK. Now we can move on.
Reading through your posts I assume you want to leave !!!
So pb's europhiles now admit that David Cameron would never campaign to leave the EU, yet still claim his negotiations to reform the EU are going well, thanks to his recent threat to leave the EU, which everyone in the entire world knows is a stupid lie, because he would never campaign to leave the EU, despite his own threats otherwise.
OK. Now we can move on.
What the f*** do you expect? Or think should have happened otherwise?
Cameron saying what he said in the past is in the past. I'm saying it's impossible to turn back time and after a change can only proceed based on your actions afterwards. I fail to see how the inability to time travel is unreasonable.
I was thinking - it would be interesting to see some EURef polling of Corbyn voters or Momentum members. I suspect these groups might have a majority of Leavers. If so Jezza ought to listen to his supporters and change his public position.
On books, if I was trying to be up my own whatever I would say Absolute Beginners. However, when I read it I was disappointed.
I would recommend The Glass Palace by Amitav Ghosh. In fact, I would recommend most of his stuff.
I wonder what other PBers' favorite books are. I would have a very hard time choosing, but Candide must be right up there.
Four in my top 10 novels are:-
- Vanity Fair - Anna Karenina - Jane Eyre - Animal Farm
I have yet to read Vanity Fair - not sure why. Yes, Orwell has to be in the top 10, and Animal Farm would edge out 1984 for me.
Brave New World, Brazzaville Beach, Remembering Argentina and The Unbearable Lightness of Being would be in my top ten. I guess I am a depressed sort of dystopian guy.
Vanity Fair is a wonderfully sly cynical description of a world where appearance, living beyond one's means and double dealing, both professional and personal, is endemic. We could do with a Vanity Fair for our times.
I don't read much fiction mind.
But John Horne Burns' The Gallery is well worth seeking out. A series of short stories set in North Africa and Naples in 1944/45. Tremendous.
I wonder what other PBers' favorite books are. I would have a very hard time choosing, but Candide must be right up there.
Four in my top 10 novels are:-
- Vanity Fair - Anna Karenina - Jane Eyre - Animal Farm
I have yet to read Vanity Fair - not sure why. Yes, Orwell has to be in the top 10, and Animal Farm would edge out 1984 for me.
Brave New World, Brazzaville Beach, Remembering Argentina and The Unbearable Lightness of Being would be in my top ten. I guess I am a depressed sort of dystopian guy.
Vanity Fair is a wonderfully sly cynical description of a world where appearance, living beyond one's means and double dealing, both professional and personal, is endemic. We could do with a Vanity Fair for our times.
I don't read much fiction mind.
But John Horne Burns' The Gallery is well worth seeking out. A series of short stories set in North Africa and Naples in 1944/45. Tremendous.
I wonder what other PBers' favorite books are. I would have a very hard time choosing, but Candide must be right up there.
Four in my top 10 novels are:-
- Vanity Fair - Anna Karenina - Jane Eyre - Animal Farm
I have yet to read Vanity Fair - not sure why. Yes, Orwell has to be in the top 10, and Animal Farm would edge out 1984 for me.
Brave New World, Brazzaville Beach, Remembering Argentina and The Unbearable Lightness of Being would be in my top ten. I guess I am a depressed sort of dystopian guy.
Vanity Fair is a wonderfully sly cynical description of a world where appearance, living beyond one's means and double dealing, both professional and personal, is endemic. We could do with a Vanity Fair for our times.
I don't read much fiction mind.
But John Horne Burns' The Gallery is well worth seeking out. A series of short stories set in North Africa and Naples in 1944/45. Tremendous.
Thanks. I'll seek both out. I have pretty much given up on fiction too.
I just love all those armchair negotiators on PB Telling the world what a woosh Cameron is..where he has failed..what a prat he is..and how they would have all done it much better..Most of them probably dither about what colour socks to wear today..absolutely pathetic..Cameron..for all his faults and there are a few ... is in a room with 27 hard nosed political leaders..all making a case out for their own countries..some cake walk..at least he had the guts to take it on..back your keyboards word warriors and continue your brave battle...maybe your socks should match your tie..
Much of Dickens, all of Austen, most of Trollope, Eliot , Gaskell - and more recently - Forster, Isherwood and Evelyn Waugh - Scoop makes me laugh out loud while reading it. I rarely read anything more modern - still prefer black and white films as well.
I just love all those armchair negotiators on PB Telling the world what a woosh Cameron is..where he has failed..what a prat he is..and how they would have all done it much better..Most of them probably dither about what colour socks to wear today..absolutely pathetic..Cameron..for all his faults and there are a few ... is in a room with 27 hard nosed political leaders..all making a case out for their own countries..some cake walk..at least he had the guts to take it on..back your keyboards word warriors and continue your brave battle...maybe your socks should match your tie..
Well quite. We don't agree on the EU but a little humility from all of us on here would not go amiss. Don't hold your breath.
I wonder what other PBers' favorite books are. I would have a very hard time choosing, but Candide must be right up there.
Four in my top 10 novels are:-
- Vanity Fair - Anna Karenina - Jane Eyre - Animal Farm
Seriously, Mrs Free? Such highbrow stuff? Makes me look such a pleb but the books that have given me the greatest pleasure and which I have read many times over the years are
- Red Storm Rising (Tom Clancy) - Catch 22 (Joseph Heller) - Flashman in the Great Game (George macDonald Fraser) - Don Camillio, 1955 Omnibus Edition (Giovanni Guareschi) - Just about anything by P.G. Wodehouse
Quite like Don Camillo. Have never got Wodehouse. I do like Waugh, though. Scoop is fantastic.
I just love all those armchair negotiators on PB Telling the world what a woosh Cameron is..where he has failed..what a prat he is..and how they would have all done it much better..Most of them probably dither about what colour socks to wear today..absolutely pathetic..Cameron..for all his faults and there are a few ... is in a room with 27 hard nosed political leaders..all making a case out for their own countries..some cake walk..at least he had the guts to take it on..back your keyboards word warriors and continue your brave battle...maybe your socks should match your tie..
Ah more Doddy Dribble.
Cameron lost this before he even went near Brussels. He lost it because he aimed too low and because he made it clear that he would not and could not use the ultimate sanction.
The fact that even after all this you can still try to defend him shows that what is dribbling out of the corner of your mouth is probably the remains of your very limited brains.
David Cameron strikes me as a man who has never found it neccessary to drive a hard bargain to buy a house, or a car... or anything - and it's showing now.
Now I know he's not to everyone's tastes, but can't we send Donald J Trump into bat as a substitute for us in the Euro negotiations ?
He'd say the Channel isn't enough to protect us - we need a wall as well....
Running from Carlisle to Newcastle?
How very sad that you use this opportunity to take a cheap shot at our Scottish neighbours. Beneath you even as a not very funny joke, but once again it shows the febrile undertones being generated by the out of EU campaign.
I just love all those armchair negotiators on PB Telling the world what a woosh Cameron is..where he has failed..what a prat he is..and how they would have all done it much better..Most of them probably dither about what colour socks to wear today..absolutely pathetic..Cameron..for all his faults and there are a few ... is in a room with 27 hard nosed political leaders..all making a case out for their own countries..some cake walk..at least he had the guts to take it on..back your keyboards word warriors and continue your brave battle...maybe your socks should match your tie..
Some of us have been hard-nosed negotiators in those same rooms and with tough opponents. The fact is you have no idea what experience people on here making criticisms have but simply chose to play the person rather than engage in substance.
Even leaving aside the deal as is and assuming it magically becomes brilliant, I just don't trust the EU to keep its word.
Ah now I'm closer to you - except the EU is not noticeably worse in this respect than any other institution. And if they don't there's sfa they can do to prevent the UK walking away.
But to be fair the EU does have history on this score. As John Major found out to his cost.
I just love all those armchair negotiators on PB Telling the world what a woosh Cameron is..where he has failed..what a prat he is..and how they would have all done it much better..Most of them probably dither about what colour socks to wear today..absolutely pathetic..Cameron..for all his faults and there are a few ... is in a room with 27 hard nosed political leaders..all making a case out for their own countries..some cake walk..at least he had the guts to take it on..back your keyboards word warriors and continue your brave battle...maybe your socks should match your tie..
Ah more Doddy Dribble.
Cameron lost this before he even went near Brussels. He lost it because he aimed too low and because he made it clear that he would not and could not use the ultimate sanction.
The fact that even after all this you can still try to defend him shows that what is dribbling out of the corner of your mouth is probably the remains of your very limited brains.
Or that things are viewed differently to you. I think he aimed to get the most that can be extracted when you need 27 other nations to unanimously agree.
I just love all those armchair negotiators on PB Telling the world what a woosh Cameron is..where he has failed..what a prat he is..and how they would have all done it much better..Most of them probably dither about what colour socks to wear today..absolutely pathetic..Cameron..for all his faults and there are a few ... is in a room with 27 hard nosed political leaders..all making a case out for their own countries..some cake walk..at least he had the guts to take it on..back your keyboards word warriors and continue your brave battle...maybe your socks should match your tie..
Ah more Doddy Dribble.
Cameron lost this before he even went near Brussels. He lost it because he aimed too low and because he made it clear that he would not and could not use the ultimate sanction.
The fact that even after all this you can still try to defend him shows that what is dribbling out of the corner of your mouth is probably the remains of your very limited brains.
Or that things are viewed differently to you. I think he aimed to get the most that can be extracted when you need 27 other nations to unanimously agree.
Well maybe. But then the agreement Dave gets (if he gets it) will sometimes depend on just that. The agreement of 27 nations.
I just love all those armchair negotiators on PB Telling the world what a woosh Cameron is..where he has failed..what a prat he is..and how they would have all done it much better..Most of them probably dither about what colour socks to wear today..absolutely pathetic..Cameron..for all his faults and there are a few ... is in a room with 27 hard nosed political leaders..all making a case out for their own countries..some cake walk..at least he had the guts to take it on..back your keyboards word warriors and continue your brave battle...maybe your socks should match your tie..
Ah more Doddy Dribble.
Cameron lost this before he even went near Brussels. He lost it because he aimed too low and because he made it clear that he would not and could not use the ultimate sanction.
The fact that even after all this you can still try to defend him shows that what is dribbling out of the corner of your mouth is probably the remains of your very limited brains.
Or that things are viewed differently to you. I think he aimed to get the most that can be extracted when you need 27 other nations to unanimously agree.
As you have done with Sean you continue to ignore the basic fact that he had already made it clear that if he didn't get what he wanted he would do... nothing.
If someone was trying to mug you in the street and the threat was "Give me your money or I will look hurt" I suspect your response would be very much like that of the EU leaders which is to say, very politely, go swivel.
Cameron needs to mug the EU. The one and only threat he could make is that he would recommend LEAVE if he didn't get significant results. What he has actually done is asked for utterly insignificant results and then looked hurt when he didn't even achieve them.
I suspect seasoned negotiators the world over are looking at this in utter disbelief.
I just love all those armchair negotiators on PB Telling the world what a woosh Cameron is..where he has failed..what a prat he is..and how they would have all done it much better..Most of them probably dither about what colour socks to wear today..absolutely pathetic..Cameron..for all his faults and there are a few ... is in a room with 27 hard nosed political leaders..all making a case out for their own countries..some cake walk..at least he had the guts to take it on..back your keyboards word warriors and continue your brave battle...maybe your socks should match your tie..
Ah more Doddy Dribble.
Cameron lost this before he even went near Brussels. He lost it because he aimed too low and because he made it clear that he would not and could not use the ultimate sanction.
The fact that even after all this you can still try to defend him shows that what is dribbling out of the corner of your mouth is probably the remains of your very limited brains.
Or that things are viewed differently to you. I think he aimed to get the most that can be extracted when you need 27 other nations to unanimously agree.
Well maybe. But then the agreement Dave gets (if he gets it) will sometimes depend on just that. The agreement of 27 nations.
The idea that Dave has managed to persuade 27 heads of state to spend days locked up 'for some theatrics' is patently absurd.
He may come away with nothing worth mentioning. But the idea that it was all pre-arranged is so ridiculous as to beggar belief. It presupposes that somehow appearing a total f*cking loser would some how be a vote winner.
Mr. Taffys, the media's uncompromising stance might be in part due to Labour's weakness. The press can go for Cameron's jugular, because, come election time, not only will he not be there, but Labour may well be led by an idiot who is also a step away from being a communist.
I wish non-subscribers could read the comments like they can on some other websites. Maybe they've cottoned on to the fact that comments are sometimes more interesting than the article.
218 and counting - barely a mention of UKIP, just lots of very irked readers saying Time To Leave/Who The Eff Do You Think You Are in 200 different ways.
This is sent out even as the summit heads into an unprecedented third day. It's mortifying. A total gaffe. Cringe-making.
And you say this is "getting their act together". I'd hate to see what happens when they screw up. What do they do then? Personally explode on camera?
Sure, it's cringe making.
So what? These are not meant to be objective statements (if you want those, read my posts!)
First you claimed it was evidence of them "getting their act together." Now you admit it's cringe-making
The significance of this is that there is a meme floating around, that the entire deal is a charade, Cameron was going to recommend staying whatever he got, and he's just lying now, along with most of his party.
This stuff seriously reinforces that idea. And it's poisonous for REMAIN.
Sean: apart from you, Mr N and me and maybe a few others, no-one else is paying any attention to this.
The budget will likely have more impact on any referendum than anything coming out of Brussels. Cameron could just as easily lose this if Osborne screws over everyone's pensions and the middle classes decide to take their revenge.
The polls suggest you are wrong. Voters noticed the crapness of the first deal, and shifted accordingly.
Mr Tyndall your attempts at ridicule are pathetic... please try to up your game..keep away from the mirror..
LOL. You really don't like it when someone calls you do you. Rather sad that you get all hurt and defensive.
Here's a little tip. Try not writing utter bollocks and maybe, just maybe, people might think you actually do have a smidgen of intelligence. Personally, I doubt it but others might be more generous.
I just love all those armchair negotiators on PB Telling the world what a woosh Cameron is..where he has failed..what a prat he is..and how they would have all done it much better..Most of them probably dither about what colour socks to wear today..absolutely pathetic..Cameron..for all his faults and there are a few ... is in a room with 27 hard nosed political leaders..all making a case out for their own countries..some cake walk..at least he had the guts to take it on..back your keyboards word warriors and continue your brave battle...maybe your socks should match your tie..
You can believe me or not, but I was willing Cameron on before this "negotiation" began. I knew it was largely theatre (I also knew he would never campaign for OUT) nonetheless I hoped and believed he would secure reasonably significant reform, one or two major repatriated powers, and - most important - real protection for the City. I hoped and believed he would get this, because this was what he told us he required, as a bare minimum.
Instead he came back with the most pathetic wishlist of nothingness, which he then proceeded to tell us was a quite magnificent triumph, in the most brazen example of British political lying since Blair and his dossier. He is insulting us, and taking us for fools.
This is why people like me have turned against him, and against this whole process.
And now I'm going to read about rhinos.
If you are willing him on before the negotiation began, why are you now chastising him for stuff said BEFORE that?
I just love all those armchair negotiators on PB Telling the world what a woosh Cameron is..where he has failed..what a prat he is..and how they would have all done it much better..Most of them probably dither about what colour socks to wear today..absolutely pathetic..Cameron..for all his faults and there are a few ... is in a room with 27 hard nosed political leaders..all making a case out for their own countries..some cake walk..at least he had the guts to take it on..back your keyboards word warriors and continue your brave battle...maybe your socks should match your tie..
Some of us have been hard-nosed negotiators in those same rooms and with tough opponents. The fact is you have no idea what experience people on here making criticisms have but simply chose to play the person rather than engage in substance.
Oh dear another one telling us how great he is - Which political party did you lead? When were you PM? Explain what you got out of the EU in your negotiations.
Well I'm happy to admit that back at the time of Cameron's Bloomberg speech I was still open to the possibility that the renegotiation might actually achieve something concrete and valuable for the UK.
I would still have voted LEAVE because I have been opposed to the UK's EU membership since the early 1990s; Maastricht was the tipping point for me.
But with some genuine repatriations of power and cast-iron protections for the financial sector we would at least have been looking at an EU which was less intolerable and we would have been moving in the right direction.
Then the renegotiation began and it became clear extremely quickly that the whole thing was a sham. Briefing after briefing came in revealing the PM abandoning one demand after another until all that was left was what I described as a homeopathic deal, watered down to nothing.
As we railed against this sell-out on here, we were told by Richard N and the other Camspinners to hold on, wait for the actual deal. We did, and all the briefings turned out to be correct i.e. the deal consisted of absolutely nothing.
Now the Camspinners are quite openly saying they would always have voted Remain anyway, and admitting that the whole renegotiation was pointless.
War and Peace - even though you can chuck about 25% of it where Tolstoy is so worried that the reader might not get what the novel is about he spends page after page lecturing the reader directly. Feet of Clay - The best Terry Pratchett book he wrote which fully captures him in his humanist phase Pride and Prejudice - It is, at a fundamental level, a perfect construction of both character and prose. Use of Weapons - Iain M Banks's output great but uneven and with a certain reliance on repeating, familiar character types but Use of Weapons nails it spot on.
Well I'm happy to admit that back at the time of Cameron's Bloomberg speech I was still open to the possibility that the renegotiation might actually achieve something concrete and valuable for the UK.
I would still have voted LEAVE because I have been opposed to the UK's EU membership since the early 1990s; Maastricht was the tipping point for me.
But with some genuine repatriations of power and cast-iron protections for the financial sector we would at least have been looking at an EU which was less intolerable and we would have been moving in the right direction.
Then the renegotiation began and it became clear extremely quickly that the whole thing was a sham. Briefing after briefing came in revealing the PM abandoning one demand after another until all that was left was what I described as a homeopathic deal, watered down to nothing.
As we railed against this sell-out on here, we were told by Richard N and the other Camspinners to hold on, wait for the actual deal. We did, and all the briefings turned out to be correct i.e. the deal consisted of absolutely nothing.
Now the Camspinners are quite openly saying they would always have voted Remain anyway, and admitting that the whole renegotiation was pointless.
Mr. Felix, the idea people should only be able to comment or criticise the PM if they have been PM (or leader of another party) is sillier than a fluorescent gerbil.
I just love all those armchair negotiators on PB Telling the world what a woosh Cameron is..where he has failed..what a prat he is..and how they would have all done it much better..Most of them probably dither about what colour socks to wear today..absolutely pathetic..Cameron..for all his faults and there are a few ... is in a room with 27 hard nosed political leaders..all making a case out for their own countries..some cake walk..at least he had the guts to take it on..back your keyboards word warriors and continue your brave battle...maybe your socks should match your tie..
Ah more Doddy Dribble.
Cameron lost this before he even went near Brussels. He lost it because he aimed too low and because he made it clear that he would not and could not use the ultimate sanction.
The fact that even after all this you can still try to defend him shows that what is dribbling out of the corner of your mouth is probably the remains of your very limited brains.
Or that things are viewed differently to you. I think he aimed to get the most that can be extracted when you need 27 other nations to unanimously agree.
As you have done with Sean you continue to ignore the basic fact that he had already made it clear that if he didn't get what he wanted he would do... nothing.
If someone was trying to mug you in the street and the threat was "Give me your money or I will look hurt" I suspect your response would be very much like that of the EU leaders which is to say, very politely, go swivel.
Cameron needs to mug the EU. The one and only threat he could make is that he would recommend LEAVE if he didn't get significant results. What he has actually done is asked for utterly insignificant results and then looked hurt when he didn't even achieve them.
I suspect seasoned negotiators the world over are looking at this in utter disbelief.
If Cameron had said that during the negotiations I'd agree with you, but he hasn't. Cameron has said repeatedly during the negotiations that he was willing to Leave.
What you are saying is equivalent to that someone has said years earlier they'd never mug anyone, then after a change of circumstances is attempting a mugging and being judged for comments before the change of circumstances.
Comments
But Richard, we all know that even if the 'deal' contained absolutely nothing at all, you would still vote Remain. And that the PM would still recommend that as well.
Not sure what I can do about it. My MP hasn't responsed to my email yet.
Arnold, who died of cancer aged 49 in Belmarsh prison while awaiting trial, hid the devastating cache despite regular police visits.
Evening Standard: David Cameron warns Europe leaders he will walk away without a deal that is 'right for Britain': http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-warns-europe-leaders-that-he-will-walk-away-without-a-deal-that-is-right-for-britain-a3183461.html
Express: David Cameron to WALK AWAY from EU summit if UK demands not met: http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/645603/David-Cameron-EU-referendum-summit-meeting-Brussels-leave-campaign
PB: Cameron has said he'll accept anything.
Plus they have more balls than the whole Cabinet put together, with a few honourable exceptions.
Cruz is naturally an alien, in need of naturalization, which he may indeed have obtained.
Therefore, not a natural born citizen.
- Vanity Fair
- Anna Karenina
- Jane Eyre
- Animal Farm
my user name is a tribute to one of my favourites - Flann O"Brien"s The Third Policeman. I love most of his work, apart from the bits in Irish and Greek which I can&t read...
by the way, have any PBers read either Haile Selassie"s autobiography or any biographies of the fellow? any recommendations?
(My source is the guardian, but cannot post link) no doubt there are other occasions he has said the same sort of thing.
If the Leavers and would-be Leavers had spent the last three years addressing these points, rather than insulting those of us who were unconvinced, accusing us of lying, flinging around idiotic 'Europhile' nonsense, and trying (in the case of UKIP) to put Ed Miliband into No 10, then perhaps a coherent alternative plan would have emerged. Richard T posted some interesting pointers to that yesterday, but it's a bit late. I'm not going to be convinced by a blog-post written by Richard North. (This is not a dig at Richard North personally, just that his assertions need some heavyweight scrutiny by people who know about international law and trade relations).
It's all a bunch of lies from the left-wing press
I know Heraclius is obscure, alas, but the Venice/Genoa business perhaps shouldn't be confused for antiquity.
It's also worth noting I've been generally pro-Cameron (not on Defence, aid or green nonsense, but on most other things) for his entire time as PM and Leader of the Opposition. My antagonism towards him now isn't personal, it's based on his feeble conduct.
Miss Cyclefree, Animal Farm is fantastic, far better than 1984.
Edited extra bit: correcting a typo.
Cameron has said many, many times over recent years that he is willing to Leave if he can't get a deal.
Nobody's interested.
And as for those TV stations running it wall to wall, how do they sell ad space?
Claiming victory before the deal is sealed is damaging - just ask George Bush. Mission Accomplished, indeed
1984
East of Eden
What precisely more do you think he should have done. Of course he wasn't saying we should leave before he called the referendum, he didn't think that and if he did say that he'd have to campaign to get us to leave. But since the referendum has called he's said repeatedly we could leave.
You seem to think he should have got a Delorean or Tardis to change statements made before the referendum decision was made rather than judge him on what was said ever since it was.
We'll see what the final deal is, but the initial proposal was rubbish, and subsequent moves have worsened it. It's the negotiation equivalent of serving cold porridge, then sprinkling dog biscuits on it.
William Trevor's short stories would also be in my Top 10 Fiction books. An outstanding writer. Far better than most Booker prize nonentities. John McGahern is another very fine writer. Brian Friel for plays. If you ever get the chance to see Translations on stage, do go.
Beautiful. And beautifully timed.
Brave New World, Brazzaville Beach, Remembering Argentina and The Unbearable Lightness of Being would be in my top ten. I guess I am a depressed sort of dystopian guy.
Cameron's position is exactly what he says it is, which is much the same as mine. He's frustrated by a lot of the faults of the EU, would much prefer it to be more of a looser arrangement focused on trade, doesn't want ever-closer union, etc etc. Read his excellent Bloomberg speech for the vision.
But it's not in his power to magic that into existence. Blair and Brown threw away most of the bargaining chips. We start from where we are.
Of course what he said beforehand is public record. It's not possible to change that either, anyone who has only just discovered that Cameron said before he called the referendum that he opposed leaving has not been paying attention. The issue is what has been said SINCE calling it.
In reality, the most contentious moment of today's summit was probably Hollande teaming up with the Greek and Italian leaders, to force Angela and Dave to take off Hunger Games and bung in a Friends DVD instead. While the "deal", having been signed and stamped last night, continues to gather dust.
I guess we could be charitable and say its not time for traditional mid-term blues yet.
- Red Storm Rising (Tom Clancy)
- Catch 22 (Joseph Heller)
- Flashman in the Great Game (George macDonald Fraser)
- Don Camillio, 1955 Omnibus Edition (Giovanni Guareschi)
- Just about anything by P.G. Wodehouse
Even leaving aside the deal as is and assuming it magically becomes brilliant, I just don't trust the EU to keep its word.
All logic, history, and more importantly, every SCOTUS opinion on the matter confirms the position.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898) (one born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, not being a citizen at common law can only be a naturalized citizen through a naturalization Act of Congress and that if it were not for a naturalization Act of Congress, he or she would be an alien and not a citizen)
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961) (if a child is not born in the country, the child needs a naturalization Act to make that child for all intents and purposes a citizen and without such naturalization the child would be an alien)
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) (a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be a citizen of the United States only if Congress allows it through one of its naturalization Acts and such person therefore becomes a citizen of the United States “at birth” through naturalization without which the person would be an alien)
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (“There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.”).
If we're talking novels,
War and Peace (though Tolstoy argued it wasn't a novel as such)
Shogun
Lord of the Rings
Of biographies and autobiographies,
Churchill's (campaigning) Life and Times of Marlborough
Ron Chernow's "Alexander Hamilton"
Lord Hailsham's "A Sparrow's Flight"
Chris Mullins' diaries
Some recent histories,
Tom Holland's "In the Shadow of the Sword"
James Barr's "A Line in the Sand"
Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers"
'Great Expectations' or, my personal favourite 'A Tale of Two Cities'
Cameron saying what he said in the past is in the past. I'm saying it's impossible to turn back time and after a change can only proceed based on your actions afterwards. I fail to see how the inability to time travel is unreasonable.
On books, if I was trying to be up my own whatever I would say Absolute Beginners. However, when I read it I was disappointed.
I would recommend The Glass Palace by Amitav Ghosh. In fact, I would recommend most of his stuff.
I don't read much fiction mind.
But John Horne Burns' The Gallery is well worth seeking out. A series of short stories set in North Africa and Naples in 1944/45. Tremendous.
Cameron lost this before he even went near Brussels. He lost it because he aimed too low and because he made it clear that he would not and could not use the ultimate sanction.
The fact that even after all this you can still try to defend him shows that what is dribbling out of the corner of your mouth is probably the remains of your very limited brains.
Pillock.
If you must write such utter bollocks then you have to expect to be ridiculed for it.
Christopher Brookmyre:
- A Big Boy Did It and Ran Away
- The Sacred Art of Stealing
- All Fun and Games Until Someone Loses an Eye
Dorothy L Sayers
- Strong Poison
- Murder Must Advertise
Michael Connelley
- Echo Park
- Angels Flight
Last post:
Trump 13913 Likes; 1803 shares; 2 hrs
Carson 5237 Likes; 227 shares; 2 hrs
Kasich 1826 Likes; 255 shares; 40 mins
Cruz 1592 Likes; 263 shares; 45 mins
Rubio 1033 Likes; 105 shares; 1 hr
Bush 403 Likes; 38 shares; 1 hr
Sanders 13067 Likes; 1798 shares; 2 hrs
Clinton 5016 Likes; 273 shares; 2 hrs
Also highly rate Paul Auster - and Philip K Dick (though that goes without saying!).
Cameron has said that Britain's best interests are staying in a reformed EU, and on that I agree with him.
But since he has not reformed them, they are not reforming, and they are not going to reform, then we must leave.
If someone was trying to mug you in the street and the threat was "Give me your money or I will look hurt" I suspect your response would be very much like that of the EU leaders which is to say, very politely, go swivel.
Cameron needs to mug the EU. The one and only threat he could make is that he would recommend LEAVE if he didn't get significant results. What he has actually done is asked for utterly insignificant results and then looked hurt when he didn't even achieve them.
I suspect seasoned negotiators the world over are looking at this in utter disbelief.
He may come away with nothing worth mentioning. But the idea that it was all pre-arranged is so ridiculous as to beggar belief. It presupposes that somehow appearing a total f*cking loser would some how be a vote winner.
Here's a little tip. Try not writing utter bollocks and maybe, just maybe, people might think you actually do have a smidgen of intelligence. Personally, I doubt it but others might be more generous.
I would still have voted LEAVE because I have been opposed to the UK's EU membership since the early 1990s; Maastricht was the tipping point for me.
But with some genuine repatriations of power and cast-iron protections for the financial sector we would at least have been looking at an EU which was less intolerable and we would have been moving in the right direction.
Then the renegotiation began and it became clear extremely quickly that the whole thing was a sham. Briefing after briefing came in revealing the PM abandoning one demand after another until all that was left was what I described as a homeopathic deal, watered down to nothing.
As we railed against this sell-out on here, we were told by Richard N and the other Camspinners to hold on, wait for the actual deal. We did, and all the briefings turned out to be correct i.e. the deal consisted of absolutely nothing.
Now the Camspinners are quite openly saying they would always have voted Remain anyway, and admitting that the whole renegotiation was pointless.
And they are upset at being called dishonest.
I see the BBC are showing a PC version of "The Night Manager" - am ready to cringe.
War and Peace - even though you can chuck about 25% of it where Tolstoy is so worried that the reader might not get what the novel is about he spends page after page lecturing the reader directly.
Feet of Clay - The best Terry Pratchett book he wrote which fully captures him in his humanist phase
Pride and Prejudice - It is, at a fundamental level, a perfect construction of both character and prose.
Use of Weapons - Iain M Banks's output great but uneven and with a certain reliance on repeating, familiar character types but Use of Weapons nails it spot on.
What you are saying is equivalent to that someone has said years earlier they'd never mug anyone, then after a change of circumstances is attempting a mugging and being judged for comments before the change of circumstances.