Does anyone know why Hilary chose to use private emails? From what I've read it was just a lazy mistake with no intention of being deceitful. If this is in fact the case I can't imagine the public being bothered by some procedural error and if the authorities do wont it look politically motivated
You just don't do "lazy mistakes" with the most highly classified and secret information and protocols where people's lives are placed at risk and if you wish to be POTUS. Any normal person breaching these protocols would by now be out of the building and most likely in handcuffs.
Anyway, Somehow I just cannot imagine you being as "sympathetic" and "understanding" of a right wing candidate.
I just some things are worthy of bringing down a political career and some aren't. And this surely isn't
Maybe?
It remains an act that had a lesser mortal committed it would receive an instant dismissal. Even in the commercial world had this been done with strategic company information this would have been likely. It was also stated on previous revelations that various people were named in the Emails putting them at very serious risk. (reports indicate)
Mind you, not to worry about all that minor petty stuff , can't put Hilary's career at risk now can we, eh?
As a junior minister, Oliver Letwin scattered official secrets all around London's parks and was promoted to Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Even if people should care, they don't.
He dumped them in a single bin. Just as bad but he should have been dealt with in the same way. Really appalling behaviour but lives I understand we're not at risk.
Still no excuse whatsoever but the left had a field day then where now they seem to be very forgiving all of a sudden. Simple error etc ein c
However when he stands for POTUS I would raise the same issues.
The left did not have a field day on Letwin's papers.
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
What I object to to is the underlying smugness that Remainers are claiming to be better democrats than Leavers. Because they will accept the democratic will of the people. That is bullshit. Leave wins by 51% to 49%. The EU panic and offer better terms to keep us in. Who is going to be saying "Hang on, let's not be hasty. Let's hear what they have to say...." The Leavers? Sure...yeah...whatever.... They won't be the ones not accepting the outcome.
I'll call out bullshit where I see it. And I'm seeing it in Mr Meeks' post.
I am still persuadable on the EU but one thing that inclines me to REMAIN is the obsessive nature of many (not all) LEAVERS - look at any comment section and they are full of people hurling abuse at anyone who raises an objection to BREXIT. It's a mob mentality similar to the pro-independence camp in the Scottish Ref.
Mr Meeks is also 100% correct that core LEAVERS will not accept a REMAIN vote, For at least the 25 years there has been a very vocal minority largely on the right of British politics that simply cannot consider the issue rationally and just rant. In the end I think that is why the majority will, like me, end up as fairly reluctant REMAINERS.
If something so ridiculous is what you base your decision on, you deserve everything you get.
Polls show quite clearly that even if we remain, three quarters of the public want more powers back from the EU. Party needs to decide whether, in event of Remain vote, they want to be more pro-EU than general public and accept status quo and further integration by EU laws.
Personally think best approach would be to push for further repatriation when Eurozone integrates, but do it properly this time.
And earlier on I got criticised for suggesting that Leavers wouldn't respect the referendum result if they lost...
No, you got criticised for saying only the Remainers would respect the result if they lost. With not a shred of evidence.
So that was Thatcher's advice shortly before the party removed her? I think that says it all.
There will be every need to heal wounds unless the party wants to become an irrelevance again.
The Tories areneeds to be completely drained, with the wound laid open so it cannot re-form. It should then be left to heal by secondary intention.
In other words: the toxic material needs to be removed and disposed of. The original article is right.
The toxic together.
The obsession with Europe will not end while there are Bitter Enders still fighting a guerilla war, claiming a stab in the back etc.
If one or two obsessives want to leave and go to UKIP or the Lib Dems or wherever then that may be for the best. What would be fatal would be a witchhunt based solely on which side individuals supported.
Witch.
The EEA route basically means more of the same. Day to day voters will notice no change. That means continued Tory civil war.
No it wouldn't.
EEA gives the UK a seat on all trade bodies, and external trade, regional, foreign, justice, home affairs, fisheries and agriculture policy are all fully independent.
There is also an emergency brake (a real one) that can be applied by the UK unilaterally, although EU countries can take retaliatory and proportionate action. EU citizenship rights end.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
Mr. Meeks, there's a critical difference between the crusades and Leave, though.
Once we've left, we've left. The crusades were always unstable, reinforcing a strategically difficult situation that was only initially successful due to perfect (and fortunate) timing.
Once we leave, it's over. Whereas the crusades were only over when Christians accepted defeat.
You also neglect that there are some zealots on the pro-EU side, who want Westminster relegated to being a mere regional council of the EU.
Once we Leave there are the terms of the Brexit deal to fall out over. EEA means the same as now on a practical basis.
Free trade is not the same as free movement. It is very different, as anyone who has tried to open an office in the US can tell you!
The EEA is by no means the same as we gave now unless immigration is the be all and end all of your arguments. For those of us who do not consider immigration to be the primary issue the EEA is radically better in every way compared to what we have now.
US Navy --- Admiral Michelle J. Howard, the first female four-star admiral in the U.S. Navy. She is also the armed forces' first African-American to achieve four-stars.
I thought Colin Powell was the first African-American to achieve four-stars?
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
What I object to to is the underlying smugness that Remainers are claiming to be better democrats than Leavers.
Not just better democrats; better people.
Sean Fear is more honest. At least he admits that a referendum defeat would be just a staging post rather than settling the argument and that he sees it as asymmetric.
It can't be anything other than asymmetric. If, say, we had another Border Poll in Northern Ireland, it would probably result in about a 60/40 vote to stay in the UK. But, I'd be very surprised if the SDLP and Sinn Fein stopped campaigning for Irish Unification. Likewise, the SNP will campaign still to leave the UK, despite the vote in 2014.
But, if Irish or Scottish nationalists won, that would be that. What's now the status quo would become a lost cause.
Leave supporters demanded a referendum now. Sinn Fein and SDLP supporters are not particularly looking for one now. If you ask for one and lose, you need to accept the verdict until circumstances change substantially.
Polls show quite clearly that even if we remain, three quarters of the public want more powers back from the EU. Party needs to decide whether, in event of Remain vote, they want to be more pro-EU than general public and accept status quo and further integration by EU laws.
Personally think best approach would be to push for further repatriation when Eurozone integrates, but do it properly this time.
And earlier on I got criticised for suggesting that Leavers wouldn't respect the referendum result if they lost...
No, you got criticised for saying only the Remainers would respect the result if they lost. With not a shred of evidence.
Is Alister Meeks just a wind up merchant for Remain?
So that was Thatcher's advice shortly before the party removed her? I think that says it all.
There will be every need to heal wounds unless the party wants to become an irrelevance again.
The Tories areneeds to be completely drained, with the wound laid open so it cannot re-form. It should then be left to heal by secondary intention.
In other words: the toxic material needs to be removed and disposed of. The original article is right.
The toxic together.
The obsession with Europe will not end while there are Bitter Enders still fighting a guerilla war, claiming a stab in the back etc.
If one or two obsessives want to leave and go to UKIP or the Lib Dems or wherever then that may be for the best. What would be fatal would be a witchhunt based solely on which side individuals supported.
Witch.
The EEA route basically means more of the same. Day to day voters will notice no change. That means continued Tory civil war.
No it wouldn't.
EEA gives the UK a seat on all trade bodies, and external trade, regional, foreign, justice, home affairs, fisheries and agriculture policy are all fully independent.
There is also an emergency brake (a real one) that can be applied by the UK unilaterally, although EU countries can take retaliatory and proportionate action. EU citizenship rights end.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
That would command wide support.
My guess is that a large number of Leave voters are not inspired by getting a UK seat on a fishing committee, as good as that may be. What they are interested in are significant reductions to immigration. With EEA membership that will not happen.
Polls show quite clearly that even if we remain, three quarters of the public want more powers back from the EU. Party needs to decide whether, in event of Remain vote, they want to be more pro-EU than general public and accept status quo and further integration by EU laws.
Personally think best approach would be to push for further repatriation when Eurozone integrates, but do it properly this time.
And earlier on I got criticised for suggesting that Leavers wouldn't respect the referendum result if they lost...
No, you got criticised for saying only the Remainers would respect the result if they lost. With not a shred of evidence.
The Prime Minister himself said that if Leave won he would at once trigger the exit provisions from the EU. What more do you want?
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
At least Leavers make points about the argument supported by facts.i have never seen you do anything other than make snide comments on the debate.
You suck the intelligence out of any debate by your mere presence.
Like Scottish independence, or Northern Ireland voting to join the Republic, Out is Out. In doesn't settle the issue unless it's a big vote in. Those seeking to maintain the status quo have to keep winning. Those seeking to change it only have to win once. It's got nothing to do with the good faith of either side.
We had a big vote In in 1975. By 1983 Labour were campaigning to leave the EEC.
I expect Leave to show as much good faith as then even if they lose badly. They are convinced they know best.
Given the young back the EU by a big margin even if Leave win in a few decades perhaps we could rejoin, though unlikely
Polls show quite clearly that even if we remain, three quarters of the public want more powers back from the EU. Party needs to decide whether, in event of Remain vote, they want to be more pro-EU than general public and accept status quo and further integration by EU laws.
Personally think best approach would be to push for further repatriation when Eurozone integrates, but do it properly this time.
And earlier on I got criticised for suggesting that Leavers wouldn't respect the referendum result if they lost...
No, you got criticised for saying only the Remainers would respect the result if they lost. With not a shred of evidence.
Is Alister Meeks just a wind up merchant for Remain?
Of course Out is Out. The issue is what Out actually means. Will it make it harder for British businesses to access the single market, will it lead to significant reductions in immigration and so on?
"Of course Out is Out."
Really? I saw dozens of posts on here claiming that Boris only wanted to LEAVE so he could hold a second referendum
As for repeatedly asking me what Boris thinks of things I know nothing about Im afraid I cant help you.. I get the feeling you don't like him!
I dislike his opportunism and intellectual dishonesty, and I think he will be a very poor PM/cabinet minister, but I know that you are going to end up disliking him a lot more than I will. He is never going to disappoint me or leave me feeling betrayed.
I can take or leave him to be honest, but he seems to be an asset for LEAVE
Of that there is no doubt. But we'll see how Leave voters think of him after he's negotiated the Brexit deal. Remember you heard it here first - he will not put free movement of goods, services and capital in peril to restrict free movement of peoples.
As long as it is the policy of our govt, and that govt can be voted out and the policy changed, we are in a better position than we are now where we are bound by a higher parliament
The policy of our government now is to Remain. But from your response it is clear you are going to be severely disappointed by the results of a Leave win. By the time of the next general election we will have a new, binding agreement with the EU, negotiated by the Tory government, which will enshrine free movement of goods, services, capital and people.
Would that be harder or easier to leave than the EU?
So that was Thatcher's advice shortly before the party removed her? I think that says it all.
There will be every need to heal wounds unless the party wants to become an irrelevance again.
The Tories areneeds to be completely drained, with the wound laid open so it cannot re-form. It should then be left to heal by secondary intention.
In other words: the toxic material needs to be removed and disposed of. The original article is right.
The toxic together.
The obsession with Europe will not end while there are Bitter Enders still fighting a guerilla war, claiming a stab in the back etc.
If one or two obsessives want to leave and go to UKIP or the Lib Dems or wherever then that may be for the best. What would be fatal would be a witchhunt based solely on which side individuals supported.
Witch.
The EEA route basically means more of the same. Day to day voters will notice no change. That means continued Tory civil war.
No it wouldn't.
EEA gives the UK a seat on all trade bodies, and external trade, regional, foreign, justice, home affairs, fisheries and agriculture policy are all fully independent.
There is also an emergency brake (a real one) that can be applied by the UK unilaterally, although EU countries can take retaliatory and proportionate action. EU citizenship rights end.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
Polls show quite clearly that even if we remain, three quarters of the public want more powers back from the EU. Party needs to decide whether, in event of Remain vote, they want to be more pro-EU than general public and accept status quo and further integration by EU laws.
Personally think best approach would be to push for further repatriation when Eurozone integrates, but do it properly this time.
And earlier on I got criticised for suggesting that Leavers wouldn't respect the referendum result if they lost...
No, you got criticised for saying only the Remainers would respect the result if they lost. With not a shred of evidence.
Is Alister Meeks just a wind up merchant for Remain?
Maybe it is a condition in order to get stuff published you have to be a troll?
with the refugee migration season not even upon us, these latest polls are bad numbers for remain.
It'll be interesting what the EU does now, if anything. Germany's business lobby is already getting very restive.
The British electorate is a far better poker player than its Prime Minister.
At the moment LEAVE are getting away with implying that immigration will disappear if we vote BREXIT. That position is going to come under severe scrutiny between now and June. Do you accept that if we move from EU to EFTA/EEA (the dominant LEAVE option) that immigration will be barely affected?
Polls show quite clearly that even if we remain, three quarters of the public want more powers back from the EU. Party needs to decide whether, in event of Remain vote, they want to be more pro-EU than general public and accept status quo and further integration by EU laws.
Personally think best approach would be to push for further repatriation when Eurozone integrates, but do it properly this time.
And earlier on I got criticised for suggesting that Leavers wouldn't respect the referendum result if they lost...
No, you got criticised for saying only the Remainers would respect the result if they lost. With not a shred of evidence.
The Prime Minister himself said that if Leave won he would at once trigger the exit provisions from the EU. What more do you want?
Well, arguably I would want the new Prime Minister to decide when Article 50 gets triggered....
I just some things are worthy of bringing down a political career and some aren't. And this surely isn't
Maybe?
It remains an act that had a lesser mortal committed it would receive an instant dismissal. Even in the commercial world had this been done with strategic company information this would have been likely. It was also stated on previous revelations that various people were named in the Emails putting them at very serious risk. (reports indicate)
Mind you, not to worry about all that minor petty stuff , can't put Hilary's career at risk now can we, eh?
As a junior minister, Oliver Letwin scattered official secrets all around London's parks and was promoted to Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Even if people should care, they don't.
He dumped them in a single bin. Just as bad but he should have been dealt with in the same way. Really appalling behaviour but lives I understand we're not at risk.
Still no excuse whatsoever but the left had a field day then where now they seem to be very forgiving all of a sudden. Simple error etc ein c
However when he stands for POTUS I would raise the same issues.
The left did not have a field day on Letwin's papers.
-----------
Oh sure Hahahah... I am actually not defending the guy by the way but Guardian and Mirror led the charge and this was only a very small part of it. Google it everywhere and find comments.
Interestingly though......a certain person was a lot more concerned about the countries security in those days than he is now. Who'd have thunk? Think nuke subs as taxis or firing marshmallows.
"The Labour backbencher Jeremy Corbyn told Radio 5 Live that while he enjoyed the "idea of ministers walking around the park in the morning", carrying confidential documents was wrong. "It's a remarkably silly thing to do," the MP for Islington North said. "To then dump them all in a bin is really very stupid, because he could easily be spotted and followed and anybody could then pick them up."
So that was Thatcher's advice shortly before the party removed her? I think that says it all.
There will be every need to heal wounds unless the party wants to become an irrelevance again.
The Tories areneeds to be completely drained, with the wound laid open so it cannot re-form. It should then be left to heal by secondary intention.
In other words: the toxic material needs to be removed and disposed of. The original article is right.
The toxic together.
The obsession with Europe will not end while there are Bitter Enders still fighting a guerilla war, claiming a stab in the back etc.
If one or two obsessives want to leave and go to UKIP or the Lib Dems or wherever then that may be for the best. What would be fatal would be a witchhunt based solely on which side individuals supported.
Witch.
The EEA route basically means more of the same. Day to day voters will notice no change. That means continued Tory civil war.
No it wouldn't.
EEA gives the UK a seat on all trade bodies, and external trade, regional, foreign, justice, home affairs, fisheries and agriculture policy are all fully independent.
There is also an emergency brake (a real one) that can be applied by the UK unilaterally, although EU countries can take retaliatory and proportionate action. EU citizenship rights end.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
That would command wide support.
My guess is that a large number of Leave voters are not inspired by getting a UK seat on a fishing committee, as good as that may be. What they are interested in are significant reductions to immigration. With EEA membership that will not happen.
That's a different point - and, in any event, I think there would be modest reductions as we would apply meaningful welfare and residency restrictions - yours was about Tory civil war.
So that was Thatcher's advice shortly before the party removed her? I think that says it all.
There will be every need to heal wounds unless the party wants to become an irrelevance again.
The Tories areneeds to be completely drained, with the wound laid open so it cannot re-form. It should then be left to heal by secondary intention.
In other words: the toxic material needs to be removed and disposed of. The original article is right.
The toxic together.
The obsession with Europe will not end while there are Bitter Enders still fighting a guerilla war, claiming a stab in the back etc.
If one or two obsessives want to leave and go to UKIP or the Lib Dems or wherever then that may be for the best. What would be fatal would be a witchhunt based solely on which side individuals supported.
Witch.
The EEA route basically means more of the same. Day to day voters will notice no change. That means continued Tory civil war.
No it wouldn't.
EEA gives the UK a seat on all trade bodies, and external trade, regional, foreign, justice, home affairs, fisheries and agriculture policy are all fully independent.
There is also an emergency brake (a real one) that can be applied by the UK unilaterally, although EU countries can take retaliatory and proportionate action. EU citizenship rights end.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
That would command wide support.
Won’t affect the ECHR though. Thankfully.
ECHR is a condition of EU membership.
With a repeal of the HRA, the introduction of a British Bill of Rights, and the ending of the jurisdiction of the ECJ, the scope of the ECHR to override domestic British law would be greatly limited.
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
What I object to to is the underlying smugness that Remainers are claiming to be better democrats than Leavers.
Not just better democrats; better people.
Sean Fear is more honest. At least he admits that a referendum defeat would be just a staging post rather than settling the argument and that he sees it as asymmetric.
It can't be anything other than asymmetric. If, say, we had another Border Poll in Northern Ireland, it would probably result in about a 60/40 vote to stay in the UK. But, I'd be very surprised if the SDLP and Sinn Fein stopped campaigning for Irish Unification. Likewise, the SNP will campaign still to leave the UK, despite the vote in 2014.
But, if Irish or Scottish nationalists won, that would be that. What's now the status quo would become a lost cause.
Leave supporters demanded a referendum now. Sinn Fein and SDLP supporters are not particularly looking for one now. If you ask for one and lose, you need to accept the verdict until circumstances change substantially.
Sinn Fein frequently ask for a Border Poll ( I don't know why, because it's clear what the result would be).
But, in general, the losers accept the result until they think they can win, next time around. That's just how politics works.
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
What I object to to is the underlying smugness that Remainers are claiming to be better democrats than Leavers.
Not just better democrats; better people.
Sean Fear is more honest. At least he admits that a referendum defeat would be just a staging post rather than settling the argument and that he sees it as asymmetric.
with the refugee migration season not even upon us, these latest polls are bad numbers for remain.
It'll be interesting what the EU does now, if anything. Germany's business lobby is already getting very restive.
The British electorate is a far better poker player than its Prime Minister.
At the moment LEAVE are getting away with implying that immigration will disappear if we vote BREXIT. That position is going to come under severe scrutiny between now and June. Do you accept that if we move from EU to EFTA/EEA (the dominant LEAVE option) that immigration will be barely affected?
YOu are getting this the wrong way around.
I think voters want to start with the immigration system they want. A points system. That's the main priority for them. They want to stop the modern politician's practise of replacing the old electorate with a new one so beloved of Tony Blair.
EFTA, EEA, this is just alphabet soup to them. Small print. Whatever. They will get the best on trade they can.
with the refugee migration season not even upon us, these latest polls are bad numbers for remain.
It'll be interesting what the EU does now, if anything. Germany's business lobby is already getting very restive.
The British electorate is a far better poker player than its Prime Minister.
At the moment LEAVE are getting away with implying that immigration will disappear if we vote BREXIT. That position is going to come under severe scrutiny between now and June. Do you accept that if we move from EU to EFTA/EEA (the dominant LEAVE option) that immigration will be barely affected?
It won't disappear it can't. Immigration is always a good thing and I won't think that is denied by the vast majority.
What will disappear is that an unelected Politb(e)uro in Brussels control deciding who is admitted by set quotas into the UK while closing their own borders or putting them in camps waiting to ship them onto the UK. These EU members from countries that are not having any of the demands made that had the UK done similar, would no doubt be subject to widespread condemnation across the EU and numerous human rights claims.
I love Europe and the people in it . I just don't like the small politbeuro at the top I can little or nothing about.
with the refugee migration season not even upon us, these latest polls are bad numbers for remain.
It'll be interesting what the EU does now, if anything. Germany's business lobby is already getting very restive.
The British electorate is a far better poker player than its Prime Minister.
At the moment LEAVE are getting away with implying that immigration will disappear if we vote BREXIT. That position is going to come under severe scrutiny between now and June. Do you accept that if we move from EU to EFTA/EEA (the dominant LEAVE option) that immigration will be barely affected?
YOu are getting this the wrong way around.
I think voters want to start with the immigration system they want. A points system. That's the main priority for them. They want to stop the modern politician's practise of replacing the old electorate with a new one so beloved of Tony Blair.
EFTA, EEA, this is just alphabet soup to them. Small print. Whatever. They will get the best on trade they can.
I think this is correct. The democratic problem is that the people who will be tasked with implementing Leave don't share that view. If leave wins we not only need to trigger Article 50, we also need a snap General Election.
No wonder the Beeb felt the need to throw a dead Tony the Tiger onto the table....
Got to love the legalise BS. Stuff like no formal complaint, only informal. No senior management (Apparently head of R1/R2 doesn't count), only lowly management. All rumour, no evidence presented. Most of this was 30-40 years ago. etc etc etc.
Except, for instance Louis Theroux reported Saville to BBC bosses for sex with a 15 year old in 2001 (and Saville was sitting offending until 2006), which he discovered when researching for his documentary. He was told to basically go away. Now we could say why didn't he go to the plod, but putting that to one side, if Louis Theroux came to me and said I have found this, he is under the "comic" facade actually a serious journalist / documentary maker that uses the slightly clumsy comic act as a way to get access.
If you actually hear him interviewed away from that, he is fairly honest about how it is just that an act, and he has a team of people constantly digging. The "real" Louis Theroux is a highly intelligent credible individual.
Remember also he not only "got" Saville, he also gets Max Clifford to say some rather interesting things (plus a certain Simon Cowell makes an appearance and also has some interesting questions asked of him).
No wonder the Beeb felt the need to throw a dead Tony the Tiger onto the table....
Got to love the legalise BS. Stuff like no formal complaint, only informal. No senior management (Apparently head of R1/R2 doesn't count), only lowly management. All rumour, no evidence presented. Most of this was 30-40 years ago. etc etc etc.
Except, for instance Louis Theroux reported Saville to BBC bosses for sex with a 15 year old in 2001 (and Saville was sitting offending until 2006), which he discovered when researching for his documentary. He was told to basically go away. Now we could say why didn't he go to the plod, but putting that to one side, if Louis Theroux came to me and said I have found this, he is under the "comic" facade actually a serious journalist / documentary maker that uses the slightly clumsy comic act as a way to get access. If you actually hear him interviewed away from that, he is fairly honest about how it is just that an act, and he has a team of people constantly digging.
As I understand it that's not what happened. louis Theroux was told in the course of researching a program by a mother who didn't want it to be reported and after discussing it with his producer they decided it wouldn't be correct to breach the confidence of the mother
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
What I object to to is the underlying smugness that Remainers are claiming to be better democrats than Leavers.
Not just better democrats; better people.
Sean Fear is more honest. At least he admits that a referendum defeat would be just a staging post rather than settling the argument and that he sees it as asymmetric.
You think I'm dishonest?
He's willing to admit that if Leave lose, no matter how badly, he will still be looking for ways to secure Britain's exit from the EU. That, I believe is the position of many (perhaps most) Leavers.
I have not heard a single Remainer suggest that in the event of a Leave win the vote should be disregarded. Indeed, the only suggestions to that effect have come from Leavers. The Prime Minister stood on the floor of the House of Commons and declared that he would immediately trigger the exit provisions from the EU.
Yet when I suggest that Remain are more likely to honour a losing referendum result than Leave - a conclusion that seems inexorable from those contrasting positions - the furies of the Leave side descend on me.
I don't think you're dishonest, but I don't think you're thinking through the conclusions as clearsightedly as Sean Fear. You yourself have shown antipathy to having a new leader of your own party who isn't a committed Leaver, regardless of the result. That isn't the sign of a man who is prepared to move on after the referendum.
Another way of looking at this is that Remain see the referendum as a way of muting Leavers for the short to medium term while Leavers see the referendum as merely a means to an end and are uninterested in accepting the verdict of the British people if the British people reach what they consider to be the wrong conclusion.
No wonder the Beeb felt the need to throw a dead Tony the Tiger onto the table....
Got to love the legalise BS. Stuff like no formal complaint, only informal. No senior management (Apparently head of R1/R2 doesn't count), only lowly management. All rumour, no evidence presented. Most of this was 30-40 years ago. etc etc etc.
Except, for instance Louis Theroux reported Saville to BBC bosses for sex with a 15 year old in 2001 (and Saville was sitting offending until 2006), which he discovered when researching for his documentary. He was told to basically go away. Now we could say why didn't he go to the plod, but putting that to one side, if Louis Theroux came to me and said I have found this, he is under the "comic" facade actually a serious journalist / documentary maker that uses the slightly clumsy comic act as a way to get access. If you actually hear him interviewed away from that, he is fairly honest about how it is just that an act, and he has a team of people constantly digging.
As I understand it that's not what happened. louis Theroux was told in the course of researcing a program by a mother who didn't want it to be reported and after discussing it with his producer they decided it wouldn't be correct to breach the confidence of the mother
Just checked, wasn't during the program. They were approached after, as she wanted to "correct" claims Saville made in the documentary. And Louis reported it to this guy...
"David Mortimer, who was the BBC’s creative head of factual entertainment until 2006, before which he was their deputy controller and head of development of general factual programmes, joked that the corporation was “definitely inappropriately managed” while he was there. "
Dame Whitewash said it was fair enough, but then she said lots of things were fair enough...If a teacher was told in confidence of grooming going on and didn't report it, I am not sure OFSTED would say the same.
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
What I object to to is the underlying smugness that Remainers are claiming to be better democrats than Leavers.
Not just better democrats; better people.
Sean Fear is more honest. At least he admits that a referendum defeat would be just a staging post rather than settling the argument and that he sees it as asymmetric.
You think I'm dishonest?
He's willing to admit that if Leave lose, no matter how badly, he will still be looking for ways to secure Britain's exit from the EU. That, I believe is the position of many (perhaps most) Leavers.
I have not heard a single Remainer suggest that in the event of a Leave win the vote should be disregarded. Indeed, the only suggestions to that effect have come from Leavers. The Prime Minister stood on the floor of the House of Commons and declared that he would immediately trigger the exit provisions from the EU.
Yet when I suggest that Remain are more likely to honour a losing referendum result than Leave - a conclusion that seems inexorable from those contrasting positions - the furies of the Leave side descend on me.
I don't think you're dishonest, but I don't think you're thinking through the conclusions as clearsightedly as Sean Fear. You yourself have shown antipathy to having a new leader of your own party who isn't a committed Leaver, regardless of the result. That isn't the sign of a man who is prepared to move on after the referendum.
Another way of looking at this is that Remain see the referendum as a way of muting Leavers for the short to medium term while Leavers see the referendum as merely a means to an end and are uninterested in accepting the verdict of the British people if the British people reach what they consider to be the wrong conclusion.
You are trying, and failing, to make a false distinction here. If we leave, some people will campaign hard for us to rejoin, at some juncture.
If we stay in, some people will campaign hard for us to leave.
The numbers may not balance up, true, and the timing will vary.
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
What I object to to is the underlying smugness that Remainers are claiming to be better democrats than Leavers.
Not just better democrats; better people.
Sean Fear is more honest. At least he admits that a referendum defeat would be just a staging post rather than settling the argument and that he sees it as asymmetric.
You think I'm dishonest?
He's willing to admit that if Leave lose, no matter how badly, he will still be looking for ways to secure Britain's exit from the EU. That, I believe is the position of many (perhaps most) Leavers.
I have not heard a single Remainer suggest that in the event of a Leave win the vote should be disregarded. Indeed, the only suggestions to that effect have come from Leavers. The Prime Minister stood on the floor of the House of Commons and declared that he would immediately trigger the exit provisions from the EU.
Yet when I suggest that Remain are more likely to honour a losing referendum result than Leave - a conclusion that seems inexorable from those contrasting positions - the furies of the Leave side descend on me.
I don't think you're dishonest, but I don't think you're thinking through the conclusions as clearsightedly as Sean Fear. You yourself have shown antipathy to having a new leader of your own party who isn't a committed Leaver, regardless of the result. That isn't the sign of a man who is prepared to move on after the referendum.
Another way of looking at this is that Remain see the referendum as a way of muting Leavers for the short to medium term while Leavers see the referendum as merely a means to an end and are uninterested in accepting the verdict of the British people if the British people reach what they consider to be the wrong conclusion.
"Yet when I suggest that Remain are more likely to honour a losing referendum result than Leave..."
You are phrasing it in a obviously pejorative way. Really tedious, boring stuff now Antifrank, you might as well be boasting about wearing cheap clobber for how bad it makes you look
No wonder the Beeb felt the need to throw a dead Tony the Tiger onto the table....
If the story in the Sun is an accuate precis of the report then it's extremely thin. Nearly everyone by 1995 had heard rumours. I'd heard from the creative director of a major ad agency who were planning to use him in an ad for a large supermarket but was advised not to by someone who knew. I normally wouldn't be reticent to give more specific details but if all they've got are various celebs possibly having heard rumours then my information is more concrete than theirs
Is Tony Blackburn innocent?
Tony Blackburn is a fool. We are going through a very unpleasant McCarthyism so people like TB are better keeping their heads down
Mr. Royale, when I say 'likely' I'm being mathematically correct. Short of a black swan event (either with the EU, or the tragedy of my own premature demise) I'll be voting Leave.
"I have not heard a single Remainer suggest that in the event of a Leave win the vote should be disregarded."
Who is suggesting that the vote should be disregarded? If we vote for remain, then we stay in and we head for a political union. I disagree with that end position and will continue to argue against it. If at the 2020 election, Jezza becomes PM, we will accept the result, but the nation is not committed to voting Labour from then on.
If we had a referendum on gay marriage and the nation voted 'No' , would you say ... "Fine, I accept the result and I will stop campaigning for equal rights for gays."
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
Wha
N
Sean F
Yo?
(snip) I don't think you're dishonest, but I don't think you're thinking through the conclusions as clearsightedly as Sean Fear. You yourself have shown antipathy to having a new leader of your own party who isn't a committed Leaver, regardless of the result. That isn't the sign of a man who is prepared to move on after the referendum.
Another way of looking at this is that Remain see the referendum as a way of muting Leavers for the short to medium term while Leavers see the referendum as merely a means to an end and are uninterested in accepting the verdict of the British people if the British people reach what they consider to be the wrong conclusion.
God, that's patronising.
(1) I have admitted I will continue to look for ways to secure Britain's exit as well in the event of a defeat. Where have I ever said differently? (2) I have also said (from day one) that I didn't want this referendum, now. Because I thought the worst thing to do would be to hold one and lose it. I only wanted to call it when the case was overwhelming with solid double-digit regular leads. However, that's history now. (3) I have also been consistent in my preferred option. I would like either EFTA or a single-market-lite option with David Goodhart's 75k annual cap on EU workers, negotiated and traded-off accordingly. However, I would absolutely take EEA over the EU if not possible. (4) Yes. I want to fight this to a narrow defeat, so the issue is not considered to be "settled", and elect a Leave leader to ensure the pressure remains on the EU. I then hope we can build a case to take us out during the 2020s. (5) So, I will not "move on" from after the referendum. I will accept the politics of what the verdict means, of course, but I will not mute myself and will also work to continue to secure Britain's exit. As well as, I suspect, Sean Fear.
So I am honest. Your response is all about you. You'd just prefer Leavers to shut up, and go away.
Your posts on this subject are starting to become insulting, and personally offensive.
(PS: I am logging off now for the sake of my blood pressure)
No wonder the Beeb felt the need to throw a dead Tony the Tiger onto the table....
If the story in the Sun is an accuate precis of the report then it's extremely thin. Nearly everyone by 1995 had heard rumours. I'd heard from the creative director of a major ad agency who were planning to use him in an ad for a large supermarket but was advised not to by someone who knew. I normally wouldn't be reticent to give more specific details but if all they've got are various celebs possibly having heard rumours then my information is more concrete than theirs
Is Tony Blackburn innocent?
Tony Blackburn is a fool
He's certainly proved a very useful smokescreen for the Beeb. Day 3 on the front page of their news. Blackburn Blackburn Blackburn.... not Savile.
No wonder the Beeb felt the need to throw a dead Tony the Tiger onto the table....
If the story in the Sun is an accuate precis of the report then it's extremely thin. Nearly everyone by 1995 had heard rumours. I'd heard from the creative director of a major ad agency who were planning to use him in an ad for a large supermarket but was advised not to by someone who knew. I normally wouldn't be reticent to give more specific details but if all they've got are various celebs possibly having heard rumours then my information is more concrete than theirs
Is Tony Blackburn innocent?
Tony Blackburn is a fool
He's certainly proved a very useful smokescreen for the Beeb. Day 3 on the front page of their news. Blackburn Blackburn Blackburn.... not Savile.
Have the Beeb employed Al Campbell?
Been listening to Lynton Crosby more like...
“There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”
with the refugee migration season not even upon us, these latest polls are bad numbers for remain.
It'll be interesting what the EU does now, if anything. Germany's business lobby is already getting very restive.
The British electorate is a far better poker player than its Prime Minister.
At the moment LEAVE are getting away with implying that immigration will disappear if we vote BREXIT. That position is going to come under severe scrutiny between now and June. Do you accept that if we move from EU to EFTA/EEA (the dominant LEAVE option) that immigration will be barely affected?
YOu are getting this the wrong way around.
I think voters want to start with the immigration system they want. A points system. That's the main priority for them. They want to stop the modern politician's practise of replacing the old electorate with a new one so beloved of Tony Blair.
EFTA, EEA, this is just alphabet soup to them. Small print. Whatever. They will get the best on trade they can.
Voters will not be negotiating Brexit. This government will be. Being in the EEA means no significant change to current levels of EU immigration. Is that really just small print?
No wonder the Beeb felt the need to throw a dead Tony the Tiger onto the table....
If the story in the Sun is an accuate precis of the report then it's extremely thin. Nearly everyone by 1995 had heard rumours. I'd heard from the creative director of a major ad agency who were planning to use him in an ad for a large supermarket but was advised not to by someone who knew. I normally wouldn't be reticent to give more specific details but if all they've got are various celebs possibly having heard rumours then my information is more concrete than theirs
Is Tony Blackburn innocent?
Tony Blackburn is a fool
He's certainly proved a very useful smokescreen for the Beeb. Day 3 on the front page of their news. Blackburn Blackburn Blackburn.... not Savile.
Have the Beeb employed Al Campbell?
Been listening to Lynton Crosby more like...
“There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
What I object to to is the underlying smugness that Remainers are claiming to be better democrats than Leavers.
Not just better democrats; better people.
Sean Fear is more honest. At least he admits that a referendum defeat would be just a staging post rather than settling the argument and that he sees it as asymmetric.
You think I'm dishonest?
He's willing to admit that if Leave lose, no matter how badly, he will still be looking for ways to secure Britain's exit from the EU. That, I believe is the position of many (perhaps most) Leavers.
I have not heard a single Remainer suggest that in the event of a Leave win the vote should be disregarded. Indeed, the only suggestions to that effect have come from Leavers. The Prime Minister stood on the floor of the House of Commons and declared that he would immediately trigger the exit provisions from the EU.
Yet when I suggest that Remain are more likely to honour a losing referendum result than Leave - a conclusion that seems inexorable from those contrasting positions - the furies of the Leave side descend on me.
I don't think you're dishonest, but I don't think you're thinking through the conclusions as clearsightedly as Sean Fear. You yourself have shown antipathy to having a new leader of your own party who isn't a committed Leaver, regardless of the result. That isn't the sign of a man who is prepared to move on after the referendum.
Another way of looking at this is that Remain see the referendum as a way of muting Leavers for the short to medium term while Leavers see the referendum as merely a means to an end and are uninterested in accepting the verdict of the British people if the British people reach what they consider to be the wrong conclusion.
You are trying, and failing, to make a false distinction here. If we leave, some people will campaign hard for us to rejoin, at some juncture.
If we stay in, some people will campaign hard for us to leave.
The numbers may not balance up, true, and the timing will vary.
Next to no one will campaign for us to rejoin. It will be a complete dead letter.
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
What I object to to is the underlying smugness that Remainers are claiming to be better democrats than Leavers. Because they will accept the democratic will of the people. That is bullshit. Leave wins by 51% to 49%. The EU panic and offer better terms to keep us in. Who is going to be saying "Hang on, let's not be hasty. Let's hear what they have to say...." The Leavers? Sure...yeah...whatever.... They won't be the ones not accepting the outcome.
I'll call out bullshit where I see it. And I'm seeing it in Mr Meeks' post.
I am still persuadable on the EU but one thing that inclines me to REMAIN is the obsessive nature of many (not all) LEAVERS - look at any comment section and they are full of people hurling abuse at anyone who raises an objection to BREXIT. It's a mob mentality similar to the pro-independence camp in the Scottish Ref.
Mr Meeks is also 100% correct that core LEAVERS will not accept a REMAIN vote, For at least the 25 years there has been a very vocal minority largely on the right of British politics that simply cannot consider the issue rationally and just rant. In the end I think that is why the majority will, like me, end up as fairly reluctant REMAINERS.
If something so ridiculous is what you base your decision on, you deserve everything you get.
Why so aggressive? If you read what I actually said I said I could be convinced to vote LEAVE but am put off by the obsessives in the LEAVE camp. It is a hugely complex issue and If you start from the POV that both camps will spin, twist facts and fabricate to their own ends people will ultimately have to decide which argument they trust. I am simply saying LEAVE are not helped by advocates like your desire self.
Its great timing by Osborne too....just as Boris gives it the "leave means leave, not a chance to give Johnny Foreigner a kick up the arse and demand a better deal".
And statement rather raises the question, if Chancellor believes this, why create the risk by holding a referendum?
twitter.com/faisalislam/status/703543671728250880
We all know why we are having a referendum.
It seems that Dave and George were willing to put the global economy and the future of the UK at risk in order to keep right wing Tory MPs onside in the run-up to the last general election. That's not even putting party before country; it's putting career above all else.
So that was Thatcher's advice shortly before the party removed her? I think that says it all.
There will be every need to heal wounds unless the party wants to become an irrelevance again.
The Tories areneeds to be completely drained, with the wound laid open so it cannot re-form. It should then be left to heal by secondary intention.
In other words: the toxic material needs to be removed and disposed of. The original article is right.
The toxic together.
The obsession with Europe will not end while there are Bitter Enders still fighting a guerilla war, claiming a stab in the back etc.
If one or two obsessives want to leave and go to UKIP or the Lib Dems or wherever then that may be for the best. What would be fatal would be a witchhunt based solely on which side individuals supported.
Witch.
The EEA route basically means more of the same. Day to day voters will notice no change. That means continued Tory civil war.
No it wouldn't.
EEA gives the UK a seat on all trade bodies, and external trade, regional, foreign, justice, home affairs, fisheries and agriculture policy are all fully independent.
There is also an emergency brake (a real one) that can be applied by the UK unilaterally, although EU countries can take retaliatory and proportionate action. EU citizenship rights end.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
That would command wide support.
My guess is that a large number of Leave voters are not inspired by getting a UK seat on a fishing committee, as good as that may be. What they are interested in are significant reductions to immigration. With EEA membership that will not happen.
Why are you do obsessed with immigration? Anyone would think you were a xenophobe or something.
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
What I object to to is the underlying smugness that Remainers are claiming to be better democrats than Leavers.
Not just better democrats; better people.
Sean Fear is more honest. At least he admits that a referendum defeat would be just a staging post rather than settling the argument and that he sees it as asymmetric.
You think I'm dishonest?
He's willing to admit that if Leave lose, no matter how badly, he will still be looking for ways to secure Britain's exit from the EU. That, I believe is the position of many (perhaps most) Leavers.
I have not heard a single Remainer suggest that in the event of a Leave win the vote should be disregarded. Indeed, the only suggestions to that effect have come from Leavers. The Prime Minister stood on the floor of the House of Commons and declared that he would immediately trigger the exit provisions from the EU.
Yet when I suggest that Remain are more likely to honour a losing referendum result than Leave - a conclusion that seems inexorable from those contrasting positions - the furies of the Leave side descend on me.
I don't think you're dishonest, but I don't think you're thinking through the conclusions as clearsightedly as Sean Fear. You yourself have shown antipathy to having a new leader of your own party who isn't a committed Leaver, regardless of the result. That isn't the sign of a man who is prepared to move on after the referendum.
Another way of looking at this is that Remain see the referendum as a way of muting Leavers for the short to medium term while Leavers see the referendum as merely a means to an end and are uninterested in accepting the verdict of the British people if the British people reach what they consider to be the wrong conclusion.
You are trying, and failing, to make a false distinction here. If we leave, some people will campaign hard for us to rejoin, at some juncture.
If we stay in, some people will campaign hard for us to leave.
The numbers may not balance up, true, and the timing will vary.
I think it's just a fact that some political battles only have to be won once, before they're settled for good. Others remain open.
And statement rather raises the question, if Chancellor believes this, why create the risk by holding a referendum?
twitter.com/faisalislam/status/703543671728250880
We all know why we are having a referendum.
It seems that Dave and George were willing to put the global economy and the future of the UK at risk in order to keep right wing Tory MPs onside in the run-up to the last general election. That's not even putting party before country; it's putting career above all else.
You mean political parties regard getting themselves elected, self evidently a good thing for the country in their eyes, as worth other risks to the country? Qu'elle surprise. No one else has ever supported an action they don't want because they think letting in the other lot would be even worse.
If there is a Leave vote, most Remainians will accept it. If there is a Remain vote, most Leavers will not accept it. That much is already apparent.
I'm calling specious bullshit on that.
Leavers are better at abuse than rational argument. You make Alistair's point for him.
What I object to to is the underlying smugness that Remainers are claiming to be better democrats than Leavers.
Not just better democrats; better people.
Sean Fear is more honest. At least he admits that a referendum defeat would be just a staging post rather than settling the argument and that he sees it as asymmetric.
You think I'm dishonest?
I have not heard a single Remainer suggest that in the event of a Leave win the vote should be disregarded. Indeed, the only suggestions to that effect have come from Leavers. The Prime Minister stood on the floor of the House of Commons and declared that he would immediately trigger the exit provisions from the EU.
Yet when I suggest that Remain are more likely to honour a losing referendum result than Leave - a conclusion that seems inexorable from those contrasting positions - the furies of the Leave side descend on me.
I don't think you're dishonest, but I don't think you're thinking through the conclusions as clearsightedly as Sean Fear. You yourself have shown antipathy to having a new leader of your own party who isn't a committed Leaver, regardless of the result. That isn't the sign of a man who is prepared to move on after the referendum.
Another way of looking at this is that Remain see the referendum as a way of muting Leavers for the short to medium term while Leavers see the referendum as merely a means to an end and are uninterested in accepting the verdict of the British people if the British people reach what they consider to be the wrong conclusion.
You are trying, and failing, to make a false distinction here. If we leave, some people will campaign hard for us to rejoin, at some juncture.
If we stay in, some people will campaign hard for us to leave.
The numbers may not balance up, true, and the timing will vary.
I think it's just a fact that some political battles only have to be won once, before they're settled for good. Others remain open.
Hasnt it always been the case that our continuing membership relies on the continued consent of the public?
So that was Thatcher's advice shortly before the party removed her? I think that says it all.
There will be every need to heal wounds unless the party wants to become an irrelevance again.
The Tories areneeds to be completely drained, with the wound laid open so it cannot re-form. It should then be left to heal by secondary intention.
In other words: the toxic material needs to be removed and disposed of. The original article is right.
The toxic together.
The obsession with Europe will not end while there are Bitter Enders still fighting a guerilla war, claiming a stab in the back etc.
If one or two obsessives want to leave and go to UKIP or the Lib Dems or wherever then that may be for the best. What would be fatal would be a witchhunt based solely on which side individuals supported.
Witch.
The EEA route basically means more of the same. Day to day voters will notice no change. That means continued Tory civil war.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
That would command wide support.
My guess is that a large number of Leave voters are not inspired by getting a UK seat on a fishing committee, as good as that may be. What they are interested in are significant reductions to immigration. With EEA membership that will not happen.
Why are you do obsessed with immigration? Anyone would think you were a xenophobe or something.
Whether you or I like it or not, Richard, immigration is Leave's biggest and most effective calling card.
Mr. Eagles, may backfire. People are worried about the economy, but will also not take kindly to Johnny Foreigner putting his oar in.
Is Obama still planning on telling us what to do?
Probably. It works on some, but not all, for good and ill, so I don't think this sort of chorus will have a significant impact one way or another on the proportions of the vote, it's just a stage in the ramping up of the campaigns, nothing more substantive.
And statement rather raises the question, if Chancellor believes this, why create the risk by holding a referendum?
twitter.com/faisalislam/status/703543671728250880
We all know why we are having a referendum.
It seems that Dave and George were willing to put the global economy and the future of the UK at risk in order to keep right wing Tory MPs onside in the run-up to the last general election. That's not even putting party before country; it's putting career above all else.
You mean political parties regard getting themselves elected, self evidently a good thing for the country in their eyes, as worth other risks to the country? Qu'elle surprise. No one else has ever supported an action they don't want because they think letting in the other lot would be even worse.
Don't you think George might have told us before the GE that a referendum would put the global economy at risk?
But I agree on your general point. It's just that I am told frequently on here that Tories always put country before party.
In other words: the toxic material needs to be removed and disposed of. The original article is right.
Quite.
As the article also states, it does of course cut both ways. If the Outers win, the Inners are doomed.
Boris (or Gove) as PM with Gove (or Boris) as Chancellor, as we embark on the journey to a brave new world...
You do appear to be overlooking the minor detail of the voters. If that want to elect someone to continue the fight, that is entirely their democratic right.... see the SNP for examples.
And statement rather raises the question, if Chancellor believes this, why create the risk by holding a referendum?
twitter.com/faisalislam/status/703543671728250880
We all know why we are having a referendum.
It seems that Dave and George were willing to put the global economy and the future of the UK at risk in order to keep right wing Tory MPs onside in the run-up to the last general election. That's not even putting party before country; it's putting career above all else.
You mean political parties regard getting themselves elected, self evidently a good thing for the country in their eyes, as worth other risks to the country? Qu'elle surprise. No one else has ever supported an action they don't want because they think letting in the other lot would be even worse.
Don't you think George might have told us before the GE that a referendum would put the global economy at risk?
But I agree on your general point. It's just that I am told frequently on here that Tories always put country before party.
Or one can conclude that he doesn't actually believe that Brexit would put the global economy at risk.
And statement rather raises the question, if Chancellor believes this, why create the risk by holding a referendum?
twitter.com/faisalislam/status/703543671728250880
We all know why we are having a referendum.
It seems that Dave and George were willing to put the global economy and the future of the UK at risk in order to keep right wing Tory MPs onside in the run-up to the last general election. That's not even putting party before country; it's putting career above all else.
You mean political parties regard getting themselves elected, self evidently a good thing for the country in their eyes, as worth other risks to the country? Qu'elle surprise. No one else has ever supported an action they don't want because they think letting in the other lot would be even worse.
Don't you think George might have told us before the GE that a referendum would put the global economy at risk?
But I agree on your general point. It's just that I am told frequently on here that Tories always put country before party.
Indeed, and it's nonsense. I'm sure they and Labour always try to do that, but at the end of the day most party members will presume that what is good for the party is good for the country; that's why they are a member of that party trying to get it into government, and that will even be worth supporting a few things that are not the best for the country in order to get the rest, which is.
On the first point, I can already see two politician's arguments about why he did not (although we know the main reason why he would not say such a thing) - that the situation has changed since then and become more fragile so there wasn't a risk but is now, or that the risk posed by a Labour government would be even worse.
Osborne's a master debater. As for the G20 comments, looks like spin, smoke & mirrors. There would be some risks in leaving, likewise there are risks in staying close to an over regulated, sclerotic Eurozone. If anything there are bigger medium and longer term risks to the world economy in The Middle East. It looks like one of those false news headlines at best and 100% porcine, unfair trade organic waste.
Of course Out is Out. The issue is what Out actually means. Will it make it harder for British businesses to access the single market, will it lead to significant reductions in immigration and so on?
"Of course Out is Out."
Really? I saw dozens of posts on here claiming that Boris only wanted to LEAVE so he could hold a second referendum
As for repeatedly asking me what Boris thinks of things I know nothing about Im afraid I cant help you.. I get the feeling you don't like him!
I dislike his opportunism and intellectual dishonesty, and I think he will be a very poor PM/cabinet minister, but I know that you are going to end up disliking him a lot more than I will. He is never going to disappoint me or leave me feeling betrayed.
I can take or leave him to be honest, but he seems to be an asset for LEAVE
Of that there is no doubt. But we'll see how Leave voters think of him after he's negotiated the Brexit deal. Remember you heard it here first - he will not put free movement of goods, services and capital in peril to restrict free movement of peoples.
If Boris thinks being praised by Nigel Farage is a good idea he is bonkers.
So that was Thatcher's advice shortly before the party removed her? I think that says it all.
There will be every need to heal wounds unless the party wants to become an irrelevance again.
The Tories areneeds to be completely drained, with the wound laid open so it cannot re-form. It should then be left to heal by secondary intention.
In other words: the toxic material needs to be removed and disposed of. The original article is right.
The toxic together.
The obsession with Europe will not end while there are Bitter Enders still fighting a guerilla war, claiming a stab in the back etc.
If one or two obsessives want to leave and go to UKIP or the Lib Dems or wherever then that may be for the best. What would be fatal would be a witchhunt based solely on which side individuals supported.
Witch.
The EEA route basically means more of the same. Day to day voters will notice no change. That means continued Tory civil war.
No it wouldn't.
EEA gives the UK a seat on all trade bodies, and external trade, regional, foreign, justice, home affairs, fisheries and agriculture policy are all fully independent.
There is also an emergency brake (a real one) that can be applied by the UK unilaterally, although EU countries can take retaliatory and proportionate action. EU citizenship rights end.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
That would command wide support.
My guess is that a large number of Leave voters are not inspired by getting a UK seat on a fishing committee, as good as that may be. What they are interested in are significant reductions to immigration. With EEA membership that will not happen.
I wouldn't be so sure. I was speaking to an elderly relative the other week who said that his sole and sufficient reason for voting Leave was the fishing quota. When I pointed out that fishing contributes less than a fraction of one percent of GDP his response was 'Well that's because of what Europe has done to us'. For him, fish is what oil is to the Scottish Nats.
So that was Thatcher's advice shortly before the party removed her? I think that says it all.
There will be every need to heal wounds unless the party wants to become an irrelevance again.
The Tories areneeds to be completely drained, with the wound laid open so it cannot re-form. It should then be left to heal by secondary intention.
In other words: the toxic material needs to be removed and disposed of. The original article is right.
The toxic together.
The obsession with Europe will not end while there are Bitter Enders still fighting a guerilla war, claiming a stab in the back etc.
If one or two obsessives want to leave and go to UKIP or the Lib Dems or wherever then that may be for the best. What would be fatal would be a witchhunt based solely on which side individuals supported.
Witch.
The EEA route basically means more of the same. Day to day voters will notice no change. That means continued Tory civil war.
No it wouldn't.
EEA gives the UK a seat on all trade bodies, and external trade, regional, foreign, justice, home affairs, fisheries and agriculture policy are all fully independent.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
That would command wide support.
My guess is that a large number of Leave voters are not inspired by getting a UK seat on a fishing committee, as good as that may be. What they are interested in are significant reductions to immigration. With EEA membership that will not happen.
I wouldn't be so sure. I was speaking to an elderly relative the other week who said that his sole and sufficient reason for voting Leave was the fishing quota. When I pointed out that fishing contributes less than a fraction of one percent of GDP his response was 'Well that's because of what Europe has done to us'. For him, fish is what oil is to the Scottish Nats.
So that was Thatcher's advice shortly before the party removed her? I think that says it all.
There will be every need to heal wounds unless the party wants to become an irrelevance again.
The Tories areneeds to be completely drained, with the wound laid open so it cannot re-form. It should then be left to heal by secondary intention.
In other words: the toxic material needs to be removed and disposed of. The original article is right.
The toxic together.
The obsession with Europe will not end while there are Bitter Enders still fighting a guerilla war, claiming a stab in the back etc.
If one or two obsessives want to leave and go to UKIP or the Lib Dems or wherever then that may be for the best. What would be fatal would be a witchhunt based solely on which side individuals supported.
Witch hunts rarely end well and a line must be drawn to stop endless recriminations on many divisive issues. But some figures get excluded from acts of indemnity and oblivion because to draw that line and move on the most senior figures do need to face consequences to stop things just festering further.
I've no doubt the Tories will go for reconciliation and hugs, and well done them if it works. But I feel very confident they will continue to be torn I this issue as they have been my entire life, and trying to include all in both sides will result in power struggles. Even if they don't mean to - alternate leadership is already talked of with this split, and speculation will talk the non winners up as still wanting that.
The EEA route basically means more of the same. Day to day voters will notice no change. That means continued Tory civil war.
I'm coming to the conclusion that thats because the 'Control the Borders' Tories lack the intellectual courage to spell out to voters the full ramifications of that.
No, you can't have 'the Common Market' and 'closed borders'.
One. Or the other. Not both.
Oh... sitting here in ASEAN I must have missed the open borders....
The EU might require it but is far from necessary to run a successful free trade area with extra bells on.
What Tory Leavers have to ask themselves is whether they would be happy losing their Prime Minister AND Chancellor the morning after the referendum because you can now be absolutely certain that that would be the result of a Leave vote.
I wouldn't even rule out a vote of No Confidence leading to a General Election
Whether you or I like it or not, Richard, immigration is Leave's biggest and most effective calling card.
1. It may be as you say but that doesn't mean it will be enough to win them the referendum on its own. 2. Since we are all clear on here what the status of immigration is with the various posters and their views on its impact on the campaign it is surely more constructive in terms of debate to look at the other areas that will be impacted by the referendum result. That is what many of the Leave side on here are doing and it is pointless for you to keep banging on about immigration in that case. 3. In the wider debate Leave have already won the immigration controls vote. Remain won't win those back. What you need to be doing is trying to win in the other areas where the real battleground lies. I almost get the impression the reason you and other Remain supporters spend so much time banging on about immigration is you are frightened you are losing the debate in other policy areas.
Looks like another example of Europe's old parties taking a beating from the electorate; a process unlikely to end here if they end up with a FG-FF government, which now seems likely.
What Tory Leavers have to ask themselves is whether they would be happy losing their Prime Minister AND Chancellor the morning after the referendum because you can now be absolutely certain that that would be the result of a Leave vote.
I wouldn't even rule out a vote of No Confidence leading to a General Election
Comments
No it wouldn't.
EEA gives the UK a seat on all trade bodies, and external trade, regional, foreign, justice, home affairs, fisheries and agriculture policy are all fully independent.
There is also an emergency brake (a real one) that can be applied by the UK unilaterally, although EU countries can take retaliatory and proportionate action. EU citizenship rights end.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
That would command wide support.
If only our PM had used that shock prospect as leverage in his negotiations...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35677385
EEA gives the UK a seat on all trade bodies, and external trade, regional, foreign, justice, home affairs, fisheries and agriculture policy are all fully independent.
There is also an emergency brake (a real one) that can be applied by the UK unilaterally, although EU countries can take retaliatory and proportionate action. EU citizenship rights end.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
That would command wide support.
My guess is that a large number of Leave voters are not inspired by getting a UK seat on a fishing committee, as good as that may be. What they are interested in are significant reductions to immigration. With EEA membership that will not happen.
EEA gives the UK a seat on all trade bodies, and external trade, regional, foreign, justice, home affairs, fisheries and agriculture policy are all fully independent.
There is also an emergency brake (a real one) that can be applied by the UK unilaterally, although EU countries can take retaliatory and proportionate action. EU citizenship rights end.
And, crucially, the UK would no longer be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
That would command wide support.
Won’t affect the ECHR though. Thankfully.
At the moment LEAVE are getting away with implying that immigration will disappear if we vote BREXIT. That position is going to come under severe scrutiny between now and June. Do you accept that if we move from EU to EFTA/EEA (the dominant LEAVE option) that immigration will be barely affected?
I just some things are worthy of bringing down a political career and some aren't. And this surely isn't
Maybe?
It remains an act that had a lesser mortal committed it would receive an instant dismissal. Even in the commercial world had this been done with strategic company information this would have been likely. It was also stated on previous revelations that various people were named in the Emails putting them at very serious risk. (reports indicate)
Mind you, not to worry about all that minor petty stuff , can't put Hilary's career at risk now can we, eh?
As a junior minister, Oliver Letwin scattered official secrets all around London's parks and was promoted to Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Even if people should care, they don't.
He dumped them in a single bin. Just as bad but he should have been dealt with in the same way. Really appalling behaviour but lives I understand we're not at risk.
Still no excuse whatsoever but the left had a field day then where now they seem to be very forgiving all of a sudden. Simple error etc ein c
However when he stands for POTUS I would raise the same issues.
The left did not have a field day on Letwin's papers.
-----------
Oh sure Hahahah... I am actually not defending the guy by the way but Guardian and Mirror led the charge and this was only a very small part of it. Google it everywhere and find comments.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/oct/14/oliver-letwin-sorry-documents-bin
Interestingly though......a certain person was a lot more concerned about the countries security in those days than he is now. Who'd have thunk? Think nuke subs as taxis or firing marshmallows.
"The Labour backbencher Jeremy Corbyn told Radio 5 Live that while he enjoyed the "idea of ministers walking around the park in the morning", carrying confidential documents was wrong. "It's a remarkably silly thing to do," the MP for Islington North said. "To then dump them all in a bin is really very stupid, because he could easily be spotted and followed and anybody could then pick them up."
That's a different point - and, in any event, I think there would be modest reductions as we would apply meaningful welfare and residency restrictions - yours was about Tory civil war.
Which is nonsense.
ECHR is a condition of EU membership.
With a repeal of the HRA, the introduction of a British Bill of Rights, and the ending of the jurisdiction of the ECJ, the scope of the ECHR to override domestic British law would be greatly limited.
But, in general, the losers accept the result until they think they can win, next time around. That's just how politics works.
The earth will be dark, and void.
If the economy was to go backwards as the doom-sayers suggest on Brexit, the likely repercussion would be a rapid reversal in migration numbers.
Continued migration is considerably dependent on continued economic strength and job creation.
Osborne's minimum wage magnet will also attract migrants as it will be the most generous in Europe.
I think voters want to start with the immigration system they want. A points system. That's the main priority for them. They want to stop the modern politician's practise of replacing the old electorate with a new one so beloved of Tony Blair.
EFTA, EEA, this is just alphabet soup to them. Small print. Whatever. They will get the best on trade they can.
http://www.rte.ie/news/election-2016/
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0227/771139-live-election-2016/
What will disappear is that an unelected Politb(e)uro in Brussels control deciding who is admitted by set quotas into the UK while closing their own borders or putting them in camps waiting to ship them onto the UK. These EU members from countries that are not having any of the demands made that had the UK done similar, would no doubt be subject to widespread condemnation across the EU and numerous human rights claims.
I love Europe and the people in it . I just don't like the small politbeuro at the top I can little or nothing about.
Alex: Im afraid with special markets such as this, we will only remove candidates once they have declared that they're pulling out of the race.
It takes so bloody long to count the votes.
(a) The effect on GDP
(b) The direct effect on their family finances
Except, for instance Louis Theroux reported Saville to BBC bosses for sex with a 15 year old in 2001 (and Saville was sitting offending until 2006), which he discovered when researching for his documentary. He was told to basically go away. Now we could say why didn't he go to the plod, but putting that to one side, if Louis Theroux came to me and said I have found this, he is under the "comic" facade actually a serious journalist / documentary maker that uses the slightly clumsy comic act as a way to get access.
If you actually hear him interviewed away from that, he is fairly honest about how it is just that an act, and he has a team of people constantly digging. The "real" Louis Theroux is a highly intelligent credible individual.
Remember also he not only "got" Saville, he also gets Max Clifford to say some rather interesting things (plus a certain Simon Cowell makes an appearance and also has some interesting questions asked of him).
[More seriously, although I'm already a likely Leaver, your posts on the ECJ etc have been informative and interesting to read].
Unlike our own system...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35677385
Project Fear 2.0
I have not heard a single Remainer suggest that in the event of a Leave win the vote should be disregarded. Indeed, the only suggestions to that effect have come from Leavers. The Prime Minister stood on the floor of the House of Commons and declared that he would immediately trigger the exit provisions from the EU.
Yet when I suggest that Remain are more likely to honour a losing referendum result than Leave - a conclusion that seems inexorable from those contrasting positions - the furies of the Leave side descend on me.
I don't think you're dishonest, but I don't think you're thinking through the conclusions as clearsightedly as Sean Fear. You yourself have shown antipathy to having a new leader of your own party who isn't a committed Leaver, regardless of the result. That isn't the sign of a man who is prepared to move on after the referendum.
Another way of looking at this is that Remain see the referendum as a way of muting Leavers for the short to medium term while Leavers see the referendum as merely a means to an end and are uninterested in accepting the verdict of the British people if the British people reach what they consider to be the wrong conclusion.
STV is just too boring.
"David Mortimer, who was the BBC’s creative head of factual entertainment until 2006, before which he was their deputy controller and head of development of general factual programmes, joked that the corporation was “definitely inappropriately managed” while he was there. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11650172/Former-BBC-executive-admits-he-p-d-away-200000.html
Dame Whitewash said it was fair enough, but then she said lots of things were fair enough...If a teacher was told in confidence of grooming going on and didn't report it, I am not sure OFSTED would say the same.
If we stay in, some people will campaign hard for us to leave.
The numbers may not balance up, true, and the timing will vary.
You are phrasing it in a obviously pejorative way. Really tedious, boring stuff now Antifrank, you might as well be boasting about wearing cheap clobber for how bad it makes you look
What is this sudden passion for the EU? It is like football fans crying, “I love Fifa”.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4700649.ece
The moneybuyers are arriving
"I have not heard a single Remainer suggest that in the event of a Leave win the vote should be disregarded."
Who is suggesting that the vote should be disregarded? If we vote for remain, then we stay in and we head for a political union. I disagree with that end position and will continue to argue against it. If at the 2020 election, Jezza becomes PM, we will accept the result, but the nation is not committed to voting Labour from then on.
If we had a referendum on gay marriage and the nation voted 'No' , would you say ... "Fine, I accept the result and I will stop campaigning for equal rights for gays."
(1) I have admitted I will continue to look for ways to secure Britain's exit as well in the event of a defeat. Where have I ever said differently?
(2) I have also said (from day one) that I didn't want this referendum, now. Because I thought the worst thing to do would be to hold one and lose it. I only wanted to call it when the case was overwhelming with solid double-digit regular leads. However, that's history now.
(3) I have also been consistent in my preferred option. I would like either EFTA or a single-market-lite option with David Goodhart's 75k annual cap on EU workers, negotiated and traded-off accordingly. However, I would absolutely take EEA over the EU if not possible.
(4) Yes. I want to fight this to a narrow defeat, so the issue is not considered to be "settled", and elect a Leave leader to ensure the pressure remains on the EU. I then hope we can build a case to take us out during the 2020s.
(5) So, I will not "move on" from after the referendum. I will accept the politics of what the verdict means, of course, but I will not mute myself and will also work to continue to secure Britain's exit. As well as, I suspect, Sean Fear.
So I am honest. Your response is all about you. You'd just prefer Leavers to shut up, and go away.
Your posts on this subject are starting to become insulting, and personally offensive.
(PS: I am logging off now for the sake of my blood pressure)
Have the Beeb employed Al Campbell?
“There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/lynton-crosby-and-dead-cat-won-election-conservatives-labour-intellectually-lazy
Brexit could pose risk to world economy, says draft G20 statement
Finance ministers warn about danger of Britain leaving EU and pledge to use all policy tools to lift global growth
http://gu.com/p/4h5b3?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
After 50 years. It's just beyond urgh.
Is Obama still planning on telling us what to do?
As I've said before, it's the economy, stupid, that will win the referendum,
FFS
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/703542256515555329
Mr. Eagles, the Scottish vote had the currency issue. There's no danger of us losing the pound if we leave the EU.
Mr. Urquhart, someone should keep track of that sort of thing. One suspect the BBC may be a teensy bit pro-EU.
Anyway, I'm off for a bit.
Very good point:
And statement rather raises the question, if Chancellor believes this, why create the risk by holding a referendum?
twitter.com/faisalislam/status/703543671728250880
It seems that Dave and George were willing to put the global economy and the future of the UK at risk in order to keep right wing Tory MPs onside in the run-up to the last general election. That's not even putting party before country; it's putting career above all else.
Why are you do obsessed with immigration? Anyone would think you were a xenophobe or something.
It may have have lost Scotland in the long run.
Whether you or I like it or not, Richard, immigration is Leave's biggest and most effective calling card.
@BBCPhilipSim 22 hrs22 hours ago
Afternoon session under way at #Sldconf. Tavish Scott slamming SNP record in government in islands debate
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcJWBJUXEAAbJ15.jpg
Just incase you missed QT last night, here's a terrific point Julia Hartley-Brewster made on life outside the EU. https://t.co/q9BoxQizs0
But I agree on your general point. It's just that I am told frequently on here that Tories always put country before party.
On the first point, I can already see two politician's arguments about why he did not (although we know the main reason why he would not say such a thing) - that the situation has changed since then and become more fragile so there wasn't a risk but is now, or that the risk posed by a Labour government would be even worse.
Remain are welcome to keep Osborne.
I wouldn't be so sure. I was speaking to an elderly relative the other week who said that his sole and sufficient reason for voting Leave was the fishing quota. When I pointed out that fishing contributes less than a fraction of one percent of GDP his response was 'Well that's because of what Europe has done to us'. For him, fish is what oil is to the Scottish Nats.
He may not be typical!
No, you can't have 'the Common Market' and 'closed borders'.
One. Or the other. Not both.
Oh... sitting here in ASEAN I must have missed the open borders....
The EU might require it but is far from necessary to run a successful free trade area with extra bells on.
What Tory Leavers have to ask themselves is whether they would be happy losing their Prime Minister AND Chancellor the morning after the referendum because you can now be absolutely certain that that would be the result of a Leave vote.
I wouldn't even rule out a vote of No Confidence leading to a General Election
2. Since we are all clear on here what the status of immigration is with the various posters and their views on its impact on the campaign it is surely more constructive in terms of debate to look at the other areas that will be impacted by the referendum result. That is what many of the Leave side on here are doing and it is pointless for you to keep banging on about immigration in that case.
3. In the wider debate Leave have already won the immigration controls vote. Remain won't win those back. What you need to be doing is trying to win in the other areas where the real battleground lies. I almost get the impression the reason you and other Remain supporters spend so much time banging on about immigration is you are frightened you are losing the debate in other policy areas.
U.S. officials test-launch unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile: https://t.co/eFi1lRApbC https://t.co/XuL1yWuyWf