A question about Hilary, bearing in mind I know nothing about her. The probability of a husband and wife both being capable of running the most powerful country in the world is extraordinary.
If she had another name would she be anywhere near the front row of this pantomime?
That has no bearing on the US bean feast , it is all down to how much money and pork barrel friends you can muster.
Yes, British politics is a little better in that respect.
I cannot see a way out of this mess for the Republicans. They have to have a candidate, and if anything other than Trump there will be accusations of a backroom fix, and no point in a fix if it is likely to fall apart or be inadequate. Probably the best option is to accept the inevitable and get on board with Trump and hope to soften his rougher edges.
I am green on this race but best with Cruz or Kasich. I cannot see much value either backing or laying Trump at this point.
Hillary will be an excellent President.
The mess the GOP are in is squarely of their own making. They failed to heed their own report post the 2012 defeat and have retreated to their continued reliance on white males which is a shrinking demographic generally and more importantly in several swing states.
It's been some time coming but the writing was on the wall in New Mexico that George Bush II won but is now solidly blue. The trend is now the same in hispanic rich and growing states such as Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Arizona. Long term we will also see this in Texas. The DC suburbs are trending Virginia blue and slowly North Carolina is moving too.
Presently the GOP cannot and appears unwilling to square this POTUS circle.
The GOP does rather look like the Tories a decade ago. They need a Cameron like moderniser who can recapture some centre ground support.
This is more difficult in the USA as it does seem to be social rather than economic issues that divide the two parties. A Republican who advocated a more tolerant approach to abortion, immigration and the role of religion in national life and who concentrated on the economy is hard to imagine. Ironically Trump for all his many flaws actually is rather more moderate on these issues.
Trump couldn't give a t8ss about abortion or religion, I reckon.
Of course it could be the realisation that best way to sink Cameron, Osborne and the Tories generally is to vote Leave and that it gnawing at your sub-conscience.
A question about Hilary, bearing in mind I know nothing about her. The probability of a husband and wife both being capable of running the most powerful country in the world is extraordinary.
If she had another name would she be anywhere near the front row of this pantomime?
That has no bearing on the US bean feast , it is all down to how much money and pork barrel friends you can muster.
Yes, British politics is a little better in that respect.
I cannot see a way out of this mess for the Republicans. They have to have a candidate, and if anything other than Trump there will be accusations of a backroom fix, and no point in a fix if it is likely to fall apart or be inadequate. Probably the best option is to accept the inevitable and get on board with Trump and hope to soften his rougher edges.
I am green on this race but best with Cruz or Kasich. I cannot see much value either backing or laying Trump at this point.
Hillary will be an excellent President.
The mess the GOP are in is squarely of their own making. They failed to heed their own report post the 2012 defeat and have retreated to their continued reliance on white males which is a shrinking demographic generally and more importantly in several swing states.
It's been some time coming but the writing was on the wall in New Mexico that George Bush II won but is now solidly blue. The trend is now the same in hispanic rich and growing states such as Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Arizona. Long term we will also see this in Texas. The DC suburbs are trending Virginia blue and slowly North Carolina is moving too.
Presently the GOP cannot and appears unwilling to square this POTUS circle.
The GOP does rather look like the Tories a decade ago. They need a Cameron like moderniser who can recapture some centre ground support.
This is more difficult in the USA as it does seem to be social rather than economic issues that divide the two parties. A Republican who advocated a more tolerant approach to abortion, immigration and the role of religion in national life and who concentrated on the economy is hard to imagine. Ironically Trump for all his many flaws actually is rather more moderate on these issues.
Much like Labour with Jezza the GOP party faithful have taken over asylum and prefer ideological purity over the requirement to win.
Which states will take them over the line in POTUS elections? .. None it would seem, many know and don't care, others know and seemed resigned to defeat in November elections again and again.
Freedom of movement for qualified, useful people that will contribute to society from anywhere in the world, for criminals, terrorist supporters and spongers, not so much... or as it is known in Canada and Australia, a points based system.
The 2 Glasgow airport bombers were respectively a doctor and an PHD engineering student (though the former was in fact UK born). Not simple to winnow out the contributors from the 'criminals, terrorist supporters and spongers'.
The 7/7, Brussels and Paris terrorists were also not migrants. Even the 9/11 terrorists had legitimate study visas to be in the USA.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
I'd guess that an application for a study visa by a Saudi might get a more thorough going over today, but a brief search on the internet suggests that the number of foreign students at US colleges & universities in 2000-2001 was 547,867, and 974,926 in 2014-15.
Freedom of movement for qualified, useful people that will contribute to society from anywhere in the world, for criminals, terrorist supporters and spongers, not so much... or as it is known in Canada and Australia, a points based system.
The 2 Glasgow airport bombers were respectively a doctor and an PHD engineering student (though the former was in fact UK born). Not simple to winnow out the contributors from the 'criminals, terrorist supporters and spongers'.
The 7/7, Brussels and Paris terrorists were also not migrants. Even the 9/11 terrorists had legitimate study visas to be in the USA.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
No, I am entirely in favour of reducing migration from places where jihadists roam, and restricting spouse and family settlement, and an active deportation policy are all part of that.
I think that a country should care for its citizens, and it is unfair if a citizen has been working abroad for several years, meet a local while abroad, get married and started a family for that citizen to have often huge difficulties bringing their family home with them. At the moment for example only the UK earnings (with a few minor exceptions) are counted, so even if you have a good job abroad, you will have a huge difficulty taking your wife and or children back to the UK. For the avoidance of doubt this doesn't apply to me personally, my wife was a British citizen a decade before we moved out here, but I know several people in this position.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
He's one of the most respected computer security researchers in the world, but he's also done a lot of work on how many of the checks we do at - for example - airports, are there to reassure passengers, not to seriously deter terrorists.
Anyway.
No system is perfect, and all systems have costs. We could prevent a great many terrorist incidents (but still probably not all) by preventing anybody at all from coming into the UK. We could prevent a great many road deaths (but still probably not all) by having a 10 mile per hour speed limit.
In both cases, society as a whole has decided that the costs of reducing road deaths by (say) 1,000 is not worth the damage to the economy and to legitimate people's lives that would be caused by such a draconian reduction in the speed limit.
We can never prevent all terrorist incidents. We can merely choose a point on the cost-deaths curve.
Let me give you an example. In the 1970s and 1980s, when c. 3,000 people were killed during the Troubles, there were discussions in the British cabinet about sealing off the border with the Republic; or even just creating a wall with proper crossing points, and full border checks. The arguments were always the same: what is the cost for doing this? can a determined terrorist avoid it? how many lives, in a best case scenario, could be saved?
In the end, it was always decided that the cost of building a 300 mile wall, that the cost of manning it, and the economic costs to the Northern Irish economy, were far worse than the costs of terrorism, especially given how easy it would be for a determined terrorist to evade them anyway.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
A question about Hilary, bearing in mind I know nothing about her. The probability of a husband and wife both being capable of running the most powerful country in the world is extraordinary.
If she had another name would she be anywhere near the front row of this pantomime?
That has no bearing on the US bean feast , it is all down to how much money and pork barrel friends you can muster.
Yes, British politics is a little better in that respect.
I cannot see a way out of this mess for the Republicans. They have to have a candidate, and if anything other than Trump there will be accusations of a backroom fix, and no point in a fix if it is likely to fall apart or be inadequate. Probably the best option is to accept the inevitable and get on board with Trump and hope to soften his rougher edges.
I am green on this race but best with Cruz or Kasich. I cannot see much value either backing or laying Trump at this point.
Hillary will be an excellent President.
The mess the GOP are in is squarely of their own making. They failed to heed their own report post the 2012 defeat and have retreated to their continued reliance on white males which is a shrinking demographic generally and more importantly in several swing states.
It's been some time coming but the writing was on the wall in New Mexico that George Bush II won but is now solidly blue. The trend is now the same in hispanic rich and growing states such as Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Arizona. Long term we will also see this in Texas. The DC suburbs are trending Virginia blue and slowly North Carolina is moving too.
Presently the GOP cannot and appears unwilling to square this POTUS circle.
The GOP does rather look like the Tories a decade ago. They need a Cameron like moderniser who can recapture some centre ground support.
This is more difficult in the USA as it does seem to be social rather than economic issues that divide the two parties. A Republican who advocated a more tolerant approach to abortion, immigration and the role of religion in national life and who concentrated on the economy is hard to imagine. Ironically Trump for all his many flaws actually is rather more moderate on these issues.
Trump couldn't give a t8ss about abortion or religion, I reckon.
Or indeed many other Republican sacred cows. If he wasn't so prone to shooting from the hip (rather dangerous for the rest of the world in a President) I would rather think him a good influence on American politics.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
A question about Hilary, bearing in mind I know nothing about her. The probability of a husband and wife both being capable of running the most powerful country in the world is extraordinary.
If she had another name would she be anywhere near the front row of this pantomime?
That has no bearing on the US bean feast , it is all down to how much money and pork barrel friends you can muster.
Yes, British politics is a little better in that respect.
I cannot see a way out of this mess for the Republicans. They have to have a candidate, and if anything other than Trump there will be accusations of a backroom fix, and no point in a fix if it is likely to fall apart or be inadequate. Probably the best option is to accept the inevitable and get on board with Trump and hope to soften his rougher edges.
I am green on this race but best with Cruz or Kasich. I cannot see much value either backing or laying Trump at this point.
I see Matthew Parris is being his charmless self again this morning. Leavers are knuckle dragging zealots. Ho hum.
Meanwhile, Boris returns Cameron's insults with added colour a la Gerald Ratner.
“But that is not what they say – oh no, they keep saying that they are eurosceptics, but we have no choice. We agree with you about the democratic problem, they say – but it’s the price we have to pay. My friends they are the Gerald Ratners of modern politics.
“The EU, they say – it’s c**p but we have no alternative. Well we do have an alternative, and it is a glorious alternative.”
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
It’s a photo of the establishment doing what the establishment does best: coalescing around a policy and convincing people that it would be sheer madness to oppose it. Government by social convention.
To some extent it’s a damning indictment of bourgeois democracy, of the way that those with power and privilege get to define what is politically acceptable and assert an unwritten consensus. A consensus that’s inescapable.
There is, however, a surprising consequence to the Remain campaign’s strategy of collecting celebrity endorsements like they were advertising walk-in baths. They’re creating a campaign of personalities rather than ideas. They’re trying to compel Britain to vote in a particular way rather than persuade them. And stubborn voters might not appreciate that.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
When you apply for a US Esta, the same applies. Questions about convictions. This stuff really isn;t rocket science.
As it is instead of badly needed overseas doctors, we have Romanian gansters, who blight lives.
It’s a photo of the establishment doing what the establishment does best: coalescing around a policy and convincing people that it would be sheer madness to oppose it. Government by social convention.
To some extent it’s a damning indictment of bourgeois democracy, of the way that those with power and privilege get to define what is politically acceptable and assert an unwritten consensus. A consensus that’s inescapable.
There is, however, a surprising consequence to the Remain campaign’s strategy of collecting celebrity endorsements like they were advertising walk-in baths. They’re creating a campaign of personalities rather than ideas. They’re trying to compel Britain to vote in a particular way rather than persuade them. And stubborn voters might not appreciate that.
It’s a photo of the establishment doing what the establishment does best: coalescing around a policy and convincing people that it would be sheer madness to oppose it. Government by social convention.
To some extent it’s a damning indictment of bourgeois democracy, of the way that those with power and privilege get to define what is politically acceptable and assert an unwritten consensus. A consensus that’s inescapable.
There is, however, a surprising consequence to the Remain campaign’s strategy of collecting celebrity endorsements like they were advertising walk-in baths. They’re creating a campaign of personalities rather than ideas. They’re trying to compel Britain to vote in a particular way rather than persuade them. And stubborn voters might not appreciate that.
It’s a photo of the establishment doing what the establishment does best: coalescing around a policy and convincing people that it would be sheer madness to oppose it. Government by social convention.
To some extent it’s a damning indictment of bourgeois democracy, of the way that those with power and privilege get to define what is politically acceptable and assert an unwritten consensus. A consensus that’s inescapable.
There is, however, a surprising consequence to the Remain campaign’s strategy of collecting celebrity endorsements like they were advertising walk-in baths. They’re creating a campaign of personalities rather than ideas. They’re trying to compel Britain to vote in a particular way rather than persuade them. And stubborn voters might not appreciate that.
There are people who totally approve of a Conservative majority government on 37 per cent of the vote, who are already getting outraged about the democratic failure of a result won by 51 or 52 per cent of the vote - "a damning indictment of bourgeois democracy"!!!!!!
What the referendum has done more than anything is expose the governing, decision making elite to the voter. Often they are criticising each other so its more difficult to discern, but the referendum has united them in a peculiar but very obvious way. Even Corbs is on board. because, in his own way, he is a member.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
Though very many of the countries that we go to require no visa, or one that is given on arrival as a sort of travellers tax.
Visas really only are relevant to people planning more than a tourist/business visit. The most useful thing that we could do concerning these is have proper exit checks at all ports and airports and also active deportation of overstayers. I would also place all asylum seekers in displaced persons camps until their case is reviewed rather than letting them roam free.
There is very little point in tightening rules if existing ones are not enforced. Nothing I have suggested above could not be done under existing Remain status.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
When you apply for a US Esta, the same applies. Questions about convictions. This stuff really isn;t rocket science.
As it is instead of badly needed overseas doctors, we have Romanian gansters, who blight lives.
Recent migrants to Britain are almost twice as likely as the UK-born population to have completed their education aged 21 or over.
It’s a photo of the establishment doing what the establishment does best: coalescing around a policy and convincing people that it would be sheer madness to oppose it. Government by social convention.
To some extent it’s a damning indictment of bourgeois democracy, of the way that those with power and privilege get to define what is politically acceptable and assert an unwritten consensus. A consensus that’s inescapable.
There is, however, a surprising consequence to the Remain campaign’s strategy of collecting celebrity endorsements like they were advertising walk-in baths. They’re creating a campaign of personalities rather than ideas. They’re trying to compel Britain to vote in a particular way rather than persuade them. And stubborn voters might not appreciate that.
'How on earth did David Cameron allow himself to be photographed with that gruesome twosome?'
Three immensely privileged white men in suits, at least one of whom having failed at politics in this country went on to enjoy a richly rewarded career courtesy of the EU, telling the 'little people' how to vote. What could possibly go wrong?
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
When you apply for a US Esta, the same applies. Questions about convictions. This stuff really isn;t rocket science.
As it is instead of badly needed overseas doctors, we have Romanian gansters, who blight lives.
Recent migrants to Britain are almost twice as likely as the UK-born population to have completed their education aged 21 or over.
It’s a photo of the establishment doing what the establishment does best: coalescing around a policy and convincing people that it would be sheer madness to oppose it. Government by social convention.
To some extent it’s a damning indictment of bourgeois democracy, of the way that those with power and privilege get to define what is politically acceptable and assert an unwritten consensus. A consensus that’s inescapable.
There is, however, a surprising consequence to the Remain campaign’s strategy of collecting celebrity endorsements like they were advertising walk-in baths. They’re creating a campaign of personalities rather than ideas. They’re trying to compel Britain to vote in a particular way rather than persuade them. And stubborn voters might not appreciate that.
'How on earth did David Cameron allow himself to be photographed with that gruesome twosome?'
Three immensely privileged white men in suits, at least one of whom having failed at politics in this country went on to enjoy a richly rewarded career courtesy of the EU, telling the 'little people' how to vote. What could possibly go wrong?
They got more votes than Nigel. So they are more popular than LEAVErs. This is their edge. The LEAVE edge is that the ideas of sovereignty and independence are more appealling. Cameron's popularity is gospel on PB when discussing the Conservatives, but immediately forgotten when discussing REMAIN.
We are seeing that the people we fight like cat and dog over on here are, in the end, rather similar to each other, and have a certain esprit de corps. The causes they espouse are less important than the fact they have 'arrived' in the elite club. Privately they distrust the voters far more than they do each other
A question about Hilary, bearing in mind I know nothing about her. The probability of a husband and wife both being capable of running the most powerful country in the world is extraordinary.
If she had another name would she be anywhere near the front row of this pantomime?
That has no bearing on the US bean feast , it is all down to how much money and pork barrel friends you can muster.
Yes, British politics is a little better in that respect.
I cannot see a way out of this mess for the Republicans. They have to have a candidate, and if anything other than Trump there will be accusations of a backroom fix, and no point in a fix if it is likely to fall apart or be inadequate. Probably the best option is to accept the inevitable and get on board with Trump and hope to soften his rougher edges.
I am green on this race but best with Cruz or Kasich. I cannot see much value either backing or laying Trump at this point.
It’s a photo of the establishment doing what the establishment does best: coalescing around a policy and convincing people that it would be sheer madness to oppose it. Government by social convention.
To some extent it’s a damning indictment of bourgeois democracy, of the way that those with power and privilege get to define what is politically acceptable and assert an unwritten consensus. A consensus that’s inescapable.
There is, however, a surprising consequence to the Remain campaign’s strategy of collecting celebrity endorsements like they were advertising walk-in baths. They’re creating a campaign of personalities rather than ideas. They’re trying to compel Britain to vote in a particular way rather than persuade them. And stubborn voters might not appreciate that.
'How on earth did David Cameron allow himself to be photographed with that gruesome twosome?'
Three immensely privileged white men in suits, at least one of whom having failed at politics in this country went on to enjoy a richly rewarded career courtesy of the EU, telling the 'little people' how to vote. What could possibly go wrong?
I cannot see Farage in the picture. Surely that is whom you describe?
Neil Kinnock, for all his faults, brought Labour back from the abyss, and set in place the foundations of the 1997 landslide. His record is not of failure.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
When you apply for a US Esta, the same applies. Questions about convictions. This stuff really isn;t rocket science.
As it is instead of badly needed overseas doctors, we have Romanian gansters, who blight lives.
Recent migrants to Britain are almost twice as likely as the UK-born population to have completed their education aged 21 or over.
and...
So far from usually being Romanian gangsters, migrants to the UK are exactly the type of highly educated people we would love to have.
Visas really only are relevant to people planning more than a tourist/business visit. The most useful thing that we could do concerning these is have proper exit checks at all ports and airports and also active deportation of overstayers. I would also place all asylum seekers in displaced persons camps until their case is reviewed rather than letting them roam free.
There is very little point in tightening rules if existing ones are not enforced. Nothing I have suggested above could not be done under existing Remain status.
I said as much a couple of days ago. I said even it we remain, immigration needs a complete overhaul because it is currently not fit for purpose, plus tightening up a lot of the current sloppiness would go some way to pacifying outers that didn't get their wish. It would be very smart politics for a Tory government post "IN", but I don't see it happening because Dave is too concerned about what the Guardian might say.
Linking this to my complaint about visas for spouses of citizens. How does a British Citizen feel when after working abroad for five years he has to leave his wife behind for 6-12 months while he builds up enough UK earnings, and yet we have 100,000 non-citizens in the UK that have failed all levels of appeal against their failed asylum claim, and yet are still in the country, often at the expense of the public purse.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
When you apply for a US Esta, the same applies. Questions about convictions. This stuff really isn;t rocket science.
As it is instead of badly needed overseas doctors, we have Romanian gansters, who blight lives.
Recent migrants to Britain are almost twice as likely as the UK-born population to have completed their education aged 21 or over.
and...
So far from usually being Romanian gangsters, migrants to the UK are exactly the type of highly educated people we would love to have.
Quite likely... but you can't use lots of nice people to hand wave away a fair few nasty people.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
When you apply for a US Esta, the same applies. Questions about convictions. This stuff really isn;t rocket science.
As it is instead of badly needed overseas doctors, we have Romanian gansters, who blight lives.
Recent migrants to Britain are almost twice as likely as the UK-born population to have completed their education aged 21 or over.
and...
So far from usually being Romanian gangsters, migrants to the UK are exactly the type of highly educated people we would love to have.
YOu appear to be saying that Romanian gangsters are a kind of necessary evil, a sort of price worth paying, a sort of voter tax. Accept the rough with the smooth.
Which is fine. But I think we can do it better. You just don't see the need, because you live a lifestyle that never comes into contact with the darker side of immigration. So do I, as a matter of fact, but I recognise it might be a big problem for some people.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Indigo was talking about known criminals. Why would you need a database to tell you something you already know?
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
When you apply for a US Esta, the same applies. Questions about convictions. This stuff really isn;t rocket science.
As it is instead of badly needed overseas doctors, we have Romanian gansters, who blight lives.
Recent migrants to Britain are almost twice as likely as the UK-born population to have completed their education aged 21 or over.
and...
So far from usually being Romanian gangsters, migrants to the UK are exactly the type of highly educated people we would love to have.
Quite likely... but you can't use lots of nice people to hand wave away a fair few nasty people.
I suggest you reread @rcs1000's excellent post below on security. We can either impose absurdly bureaucratic and counterproductive measures to keep cretins happy or we can acknowledge that the system works generally pretty well for us and accept that no system is going to be perfect. I vote for the latter.
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
When you apply for a US Esta, the same applies. Questions about convictions. This stuff really isn;t rocket science.
As it is instead of badly needed overseas doctors, we have Romanian gansters, who blight lives.
Recent migrants to Britain are almost twice as likely as the UK-born population to have completed their education aged 21 or over.
and...
So far from usually being Romanian gangsters, migrants to the UK are exactly the type of highly educated people we would love to have.
Which means that the UK has the most highly educated potato pickers and hotel chambermaids in the world.
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
We have reached a parallel existence where Scott_P has become a pompom waver for Pantsdown.
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
When you apply for a US Esta, the same applies. Questions about convictions. This stuff really isn;t rocket science.
As it is instead of badly needed overseas doctors, we have Romanian gansters, who blight lives.
Recent migrants to Britain are almost twice as likely as the UK-born population to have completed their education aged 21 or over.
and...
So far from usually being Romanian gangsters, migrants to the UK are exactly the type of highly educated people we would love to have.
Quite likely... but you can't use lots of nice people to hand wave away a fair few nasty people.
I suggest you reread @rcs1000's excellent post below on security. We can either impose absurdly bureaucratic and counterproductive measures to keep cretins happy or we can acknowledge that the system works generally pretty well for us and accept that no system is going to be perfect. I vote for the latter.
You would, you live in a nice safe upscale part of the country with a secure job and plenty of money, not sure everyone is going to see it your way.
Mr. P, I'd still like to see a Venn diagram of those who think we should stay in, and those who thought we should join the euro.
Could be interesting, but a more informative would be those who were for the status quo last time (Sterling) and are for the status quo (remain) this time
It’s a photo of the establishment doing what the establishment does best: coalescing around a policy and convincing people that it would be sheer madness to oppose it. Government by social convention.
To some extent it’s a damning indictment of bourgeois democracy, of the way that those with power and privilege get to define what is politically acceptable and assert an unwritten consensus. A consensus that’s inescapable.
There is, however, a surprising consequence to the Remain campaign’s strategy of collecting celebrity endorsements like they were advertising walk-in baths. They’re creating a campaign of personalities rather than ideas. They’re trying to compel Britain to vote in a particular way rather than persuade them. And stubborn voters might not appreciate that.
'How on earth did David Cameron allow himself to be photographed with that gruesome twosome?'
Three immensely privileged white men in suits, at least one of whom having failed at politics in this country went on to enjoy a richly rewarded career courtesy of the EU, telling the 'little people' how to vote. What could possibly go wrong?
They got more votes than Nigel. So they are more popular than LEAVErs. This is their edge. The LEAVE edge is that the ideas of sovereignty and independence are more appealling. Cameron's popularity is gospel on PB when discussing the Conservatives, but immediately forgotten when discussing REMAIN.
Cameron's popularity has melted away in six weeks.
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. The fact remains we have a significant number of known criminals in the UK that we can't throw out because they are EU citizens, and a large number of people from other EU countries that contribute nothing to the society.
Sure.
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. Simpler than that, many countries require a certificate from your national police stating you have no unspent convictions and are not the subject of any ongoing enquiries, before they will grant you a visa, Australia for example.
When you apply for a US Esta, the same applies. Questions about convictions. This stuff really isn;t rocket science.
As it is instead of badly needed overseas doctors, we have Romanian gansters, who blight lives.
Recent migrants to Britain are almost twice as likely as the UK-born population to have completed their education aged 21 or over.
and...
So far from usually being Romanian gangsters, migrants to the UK are exactly the type of highly educated people we would love to have.
Quite likely... but you can't use lots of nice people to hand wave away a fair few nasty people.
I suggest you reread @rcs1000's excellent post below on security. We can either impose absurdly bureaucratic and counterproductive measures to keep cretins happy or we can acknowledge that the system works generally pretty well for us and accept that no system is going to be perfect. I vote for the latter.
You would, you live in a nice safe upscale part of the country with a secure job and plenty of money, not sure everyone is going to see it your way.
You live on the other side of the world and yet seem very happy to inflict your pet social projects on this country. Forgive me if I don't see you as a tribune of the people.
They know that, if you can tie up a book or a magazine article in court, then there will be fewer books and magazine articles. As I wrote in my introduction to Geert Wilders' memoir, Marked For Death:
After I saw off the Islamic enforcers in my own country, their frontman crowed to The Canadian Arab News that, even though the Canadian Islamic Congress had struck out in three different jurisdictions in their attempt to criminalize my writing about Islam, the lawsuits had cost my magazine (he boasted) two million bucks, and thereby "attained our strategic objective — to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material."
...At this stage, Ankara's strongman doesn't really need to win in court, does he? He's already nuked the gag, and damaged the guy's career. He has, in effect, imposed Islamic concepts of free speech on a major western power. Get used to it, because they've only just begun.
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
Appeals to authority don't work as well as they used to.
Mr. Meeks, is the US proposing to join the EU? Or is that a fatuous comparison?
Given that it isn't in Europe, yes it seems pretty fatuous to me.
For Boris Johnson to overlook the fact that the USA is a country that was formed from a group of separate states that consciously came together is amazingly ignorant on his part.
You live on the other side of the world and yet seem very happy to inflict your pet social projects on this country. Forgive me if I don't see you as a tribune of the people.
Well since you appear to be an expert on my personal circumstance I will just leave you to your smug self-congratulation and move on to other discussions. Have a nice life.
Mr. Meeks, is the US proposing to join the EU? Or is that a fatuous comparison?
Given that it isn't in Europe, yes it seems pretty fatuous to me.
For Boris Johnson to overlook the fact that the USA is a country that was formed from a group of separate states that consciously came together is amazingly ignorant on his part.
So you admit that the endgame for the EU is a single country on the model of the USA. That's progress, now you just need to get your fellow Remainians to concede the point, and see how that goes down with the public.
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
We have reached a parallel existence where Scott_P has become a pompom waver for Pantsdown.
If Remain make this about your betters telling you what to do, they aren't going to lose, they are going to get stuffed out of sight.
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
We have reached a parallel existence where Scott_P has become a pompom waver for Pantsdown.
I wonder if he's told what to retweet by someone higher up the chain or whether he actually follows the tweets of thousands of people - many of whom aren't even household names in their own houses.
Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
I have quoted him on here many times to counter people that think government backdoors into cryptosystems is anything other than complete insanity, and i am well aware of his view on Security Theatre. T....
...Do you want a world criminal database?
Seems a little extreme when you could make do with a quick phone call or email to the national police of the country of origin. ......
When you apply for a US Esta, the same applies. Questions about convictions. This stuff really isn;t rocket science. ...
Recent migrants to Britain are almost twice as likely as the UK-born population to have completed their education aged 21 or over.
and...
So far from usually being Romanian gangsters, migrants to the UK are exactly the type of highly educated people we would love to have.
YOu appear to be saying that Romanian gangsters are a kind of necessary evil, a sort of price worth paying, a sort of voter tax. Accept the rough with the smooth.
Which is fine. But I think we can do it better. You just don't see the need, because you live a lifestyle that never comes into contact with the darker side of immigration. So do I, as a matter of fact, but I recognise it might be a big problem for some people.
Fact check by leftie Channel 4 "Met figures show that Romanians are disproportionately more likely to be arrested compared with the citizens of many other countries." "the average Romanian is more likely to be arrested than the average Pole." "In 2012 Det Chief Insp Paul Barnard, then head of Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit, told an ITV documentary: “The fact is 92 per cent of all ATM fraud we see in this country is committed by Romanian nationals. Very, very tight communities, very tight gangs.” http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-romanian-crimewave/18207
They know that, if you can tie up a book or a magazine article in court, then there will be fewer books and magazine articles. As I wrote in my introduction to Geert Wilders' memoir, Marked For Death:
After I saw off the Islamic enforcers in my own country, their frontman crowed to The Canadian Arab News that, even though the Canadian Islamic Congress had struck out in three different jurisdictions in their attempt to criminalize my writing about Islam, the lawsuits had cost my magazine (he boasted) two million bucks, and thereby "attained our strategic objective — to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material."
...At this stage, Ankara's strongman doesn't really need to win in court, does he? He's already nuked the gag, and damaged the guy's career. He has, in effect, imposed Islamic concepts of free speech on a major western power. Get used to it, because they've only just begun.
Mr. Meeks, is the US proposing to join the EU? Or is that a fatuous comparison?
Given that it isn't in Europe, yes it seems pretty fatuous to me.
For Boris Johnson to overlook the fact that the USA is a country that was formed from a group of separate states that consciously came together is amazingly ignorant on his part.
So you admit that the endgame for the EU is a single country on the model of the USA. That's progress, now you just need to get your fellow Remainians to concede the point, and see how that goes down with the public.
Oh don't be so stupid. Boris Johnson accused Barack Obama of advocating something that the USA would never contemplate, when in fact it has gone far further. I have said absolutely nothing about the EU's endgame, and wouldn't, not least because such a complex beast does not have a single guiding spirit.
Incidentally, the fact that Canada is not part of the USA is not for want of effort on the USA's part.
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
We have reached a parallel existence where Scott_P has become a pompom waver for Pantsdown.
If Remain make this about your betters telling you what to do, they aren't going to lose, they are going to get stuffed out of sight.
If Remain make this about foreigners telling you what to do, they aren't going to lose, they are going to get stuffed out of sight
Mr. Meeks, is the US proposing to join the EU? Or is that a fatuous comparison?
Given that it isn't in Europe, yes it seems pretty fatuous to me.
For Boris Johnson to overlook the fact that the USA is a country that was formed from a group of separate states that consciously came together is amazingly ignorant on his part.
So you admit that the endgame for the EU is a single country on the model of the USA. That's progress, now you just need to get your fellow Remainians to concede the point, and see how that goes down with the public.
If you are correct then that makes every word that has emanated from David Cameron's mouth in the last five years a complete falsehood.
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
You live on the other side of the world and yet seem very happy to inflict your pet social projects on this country. Forgive me if I don't see you as a tribune of the people.
Well since you appear to be an expert on my personal circumstance I will just leave you to your smug self-congratulation and move on to other discussions. Have a nice life.
In fairness to Mr Meeks, you did "play the man" first !
Betting Post F1: backed Alonso for points at 2.62.
Hulkenberg has a 3 place grid penalty, so Alonso starts 11th, and his car is probably faster than that (a red flag stopped him completing a final flying lap in qualifying).
Pre-race piece won't be up for a while yet, so I'm mentioning this now.
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
You are criticising exactly what you did to Indigo, you complete hypocrite.
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
You are criticising exactly what you did to Indigo, you complete hypocrite.
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
Is amusing, if you're wealthy and elite, we're not allowed to discuss matters of immigration because we don't live in the real world.
But the plebs of PB are allowed to talk about how international trade agreements will happen, despite them have no qualifications to talk about such things.
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
Is amusing, if you're wealthy and elite, we're not allowed to discuss matters of immigration because we don't live in the real world.
But the plebs of PB are allowed to talk about how international trade agreements will happen, despite them have no qualifications to talk about such things.
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
Appeals to authority don't work as well as they used to.
The establishment need to be believed to be both competent and fair for it to work.
Instead they told us:
The banks are well run There will not be a recession in 2008 Politicians expenses are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets and fair Nothing is happening in Rotherham Stafford hospital is safe Kids company is a deserving charity There will be no more than 15,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe Saddam Hussein has WMD
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
Is amusing, if you're wealthy and elite, we're not allowed to discuss matters of immigration because we don't live in the real world.
But the plebs of PB are allowed to talk about how international trade agreements will happen, despite them have no qualifications to talk about such things.
I love it.
''PB Plebs''
Nice.
It was was PB Leaver that raised the issue of Plebians in relation to Leavers.
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
Is amusing, if you're wealthy and elite, we're not allowed to discuss matters of immigration because we don't live in the real world.
But the plebs of PB are allowed to talk about how international trade agreements will happen, despite them have no qualifications to talk about such things.
I love it.
''PB Plebs''
Nice.
What did you expect. Its just the PB version of that Cameron/Ashdown/Kinnock photo.
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
Is amusing, if you're wealthy and elite, we're not allowed to discuss matters of immigration because we don't live in the real world.
But the plebs of PB are allowed to talk about how international trade agreements will happen, despite them have no qualifications to talk about such things.
I love it.
Is it it correct to assume that you're in the latter camp?
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
Appeals to authority don't work as well as they used to.
Quite. Personally I would take Boris' advice over the combined advice of the IMF, NATO, the BOE and the EU any day of the week and twice on Sundays. And I'm not even a particular Boris fan.
He was very blinky in the Laura K interview - I don't think he particularly believes what he's saying (but I think that would be the same if he was arguing unequivocally for Remain), but he is warming to his theme, he is getting out of second gear, and good for him.
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
Appeals to authority don't work as well as they used to.
The establishment need to be believed to be both competent and fair for it to work.
Instead they told us:
The banks are well run There will not be a recession in 2008 Politicians expenses are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets and fair Nothing is happening in Rotherham Stafford hospital is safe Kids company is a deserving charity There will be no more than 15,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe Saddam Hussein has WMD
All sadly true. Yet, when I was younger, I used to trust my leaders. Perhaps that helps sum up why young people are more pro-EU than older voters, who've grown cynical.
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
Is amusing, if you're wealthy and elite, we're not allowed to discuss matters of immigration because we don't live in the real world.
But the plebs of PB are allowed to talk about how international trade agreements will happen, despite them have no qualifications to talk about such things.
I love it.
Is it it correct to assume that you're in the latter camp?
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
Appeals to authority don't work as well as they used to.
The establishment need to be believed to be both competent and fair for it to work.
Instead they told us:
The banks are well run There will not be a recession in 2008 Politicians expenses are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets and fair Nothing is happening in Rotherham Stafford hospital is safe Kids company is a deserving charity There will be no more than 15,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe Saddam Hussein has WMD
Mr. Meeks, you're hardly a plebeian yourself. On the geographical front, you seem more pro-migrant than the average for the populations of both countries in which you own homes.
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
I don't take kindly to my personal circumstances being used as debating points to attempt to disqualify me from having a view. A sneer in return is the least that is merited.
Is amusing, if you're wealthy and elite, we're not allowed to discuss matters of immigration because we don't live in the real world.
But the plebs of PB are allowed to talk about how international trade agreements will happen, despite them have no qualifications to talk about such things.
I love it.
That's a fair point.
But you could also say that politicians have no qualifications to talk about much of what they're responsible for.
Mr. Meeks, is the US proposing to join the EU? Or is that a fatuous comparison?
Given that it isn't in Europe, yes it seems pretty fatuous to me.
For Boris Johnson to overlook the fact that the USA is a country that was formed from a group of separate states that consciously came together is amazingly ignorant on his part.
So you admit that the endgame for the EU is a single country on the model of the USA. That's progress, now you just need to get your fellow Remainians to concede the point, and see how that goes down with the public.
If you are correct then that makes every word that has emanated from David Cameron's mouth in the last five years a complete falsehood.
I'm not sure. I think he probably thought he could reform the EU into some sort of two tier system with the outer tier (including us) not going to federalise. He might even think he's achieved it.
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
Appeals to authority don't work as well as they used to.
Quite. Personally I would take Boris' advice over the combined advice of the IMF, NATO, the BOE and the EU any day of the week and twice on Sundays. And I'm not even a particular Boris fan.
He was very blinky in the Laura K interview - I don't think he particularly believes what he's saying (but I think that would be the same if he was arguing unequivocally for Remain), but he is warming to his theme, he is getting out of second gear, and good for him.
I think it maybe occurred to him the size and the power of the vested interest that he is taking on.
Mr. Meeks, is the US proposing to join the EU? Or is that a fatuous comparison?
Given that it isn't in Europe, yes it seems pretty fatuous to me.
For Boris Johnson to overlook the fact that the USA is a country that was formed from a group of separate states that consciously came together is amazingly ignorant on his part.
So you admit that the endgame for the EU is a single country on the model of the USA. That's progress, now you just need to get your fellow Remainians to concede the point, and see how that goes down with the public.
Oh don't be so stupid. Boris Johnson accused Barack Obama of advocating something that the USA would never contemplate, when in fact it has gone far further. I have said absolutely nothing about the EU's endgame, and wouldn't, not least because such a complex beast does not have a single guiding spirit.
Incidentally, the fact that Canada is not part of the USA is not for want of effort on the USA's part.
No it has not gone further. The histories of Germany and Italy to name but two are of different states coalescing. They are still recognised as countries, as is the US, and their behaviour since becoming countries is what is at issue. Germany and Italy have subjected themselves to a supranational authority; the US would not dream of doing so, despite advising us to the contrary.
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
Appeals to authority don't work as well as they used to.
The establishment need to be believed to be both competent and fair for it to work.
Instead they told us:
The banks are well run There will not be a recession in 2008 Politicians expenses are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets and fair Nothing is happening in Rotherham Stafford hospital is safe Kids company is a deserving charity There will be no more than 15,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe Saddam Hussein has WMD
All sadly true. Yet, when I was younger, I used to trust my leaders. Perhaps that helps sum up why young people are more pro-EU than older voters, who've grown cynical.
Same here. As you go through life, the times when the establishment proves to be less than honest mount up. Eventually it reaches someone's tipping point.
@DPJHodges: If you haven't seen Boris Johnson's interview with @bbclaurak you need to have a look. Seriously out there. Starts banging on about the CIA.
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
Appeals to authority don't work as well as they used to.
The establishment need to be believed to be both competent and fair for it to work.
Instead they told us:
The banks are well run There will not be a recession in 2008 Politicians expenses are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets and fair Nothing is happening in Rotherham Stafford hospital is safe Kids company is a deserving charity There will be no more than 15,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe Saddam Hussein has WMD
You forgot
'I will resign if I don't win Thanet South'
And Farage's credibility has been permanently damaged by his antics.
But is anyone here saying that we should trust what Farage has to say about the EU because he's leader of UKIP ?
There's plenty of people saying we should trust what the establishment is saying about the EU simply because it is the establishment.
Comments
Which states will take them over the line in POTUS elections? .. None it would seem, many know and don't care, others know and seemed resigned to defeat in November elections again and again.
He's one of the most respected computer security researchers in the world, but he's also done a lot of work on how many of the checks we do at - for example - airports, are there to reassure passengers, not to seriously deter terrorists.
Anyway.
No system is perfect, and all systems have costs. We could prevent a great many terrorist incidents (but still probably not all) by preventing anybody at all from coming into the UK. We could prevent a great many road deaths (but still probably not all) by having a 10 mile per hour speed limit.
In both cases, society as a whole has decided that the costs of reducing road deaths by (say) 1,000 is not worth the damage to the economy and to legitimate people's lives that would be caused by such a draconian reduction in the speed limit.
We can never prevent all terrorist incidents. We can merely choose a point on the cost-deaths curve.
Let me give you an example. In the 1970s and 1980s, when c. 3,000 people were killed during the Troubles, there were discussions in the British cabinet about sealing off the border with the Republic; or even just creating a wall with proper crossing points, and full border checks. The arguments were always the same: what is the cost for doing this? can a determined terrorist avoid it? how many lives, in a best case scenario, could be saved?
In the end, it was always decided that the cost of building a 300 mile wall, that the cost of manning it, and the economic costs to the Northern Irish economy, were far worse than the costs of terrorism, especially given how easy it would be for a determined terrorist to evade them anyway.
What costs would your changes have? And what real impact would they have on the flow of terrorists? If the answer is lots, and very little, they you are falling into the trap of saying "we must be seen to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."
Meanwhile, Boris returns Cameron's insults with added colour a la Gerald Ratner. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/15/barack-obama-to-intervene-in-eu-referendum-with-very-candid-warn/
But how are you planning on stopping criminals - who have committed a crime abroad - but not in the UK in?
Do you want a world criminal database?
Interesting grid. Will see about doing the pre-race piece in the next hour or two.
As it is instead of badly needed overseas doctors, we have Romanian gansters, who blight lives.
Well duh, Tim Stanley, that's only what we've been saying on here for the last two months.
I'm beginning to think that Leave might win this.
How on earth did David Cameron allow himself to be photographed with that gruesome twosome?
Visas really only are relevant to people planning more than a tourist/business visit. The most useful thing that we could do concerning these is have proper exit checks at all ports and airports and also active deportation of overstayers. I would also place all asylum seekers in displaced persons camps until their case is reviewed rather than letting them roam free.
There is very little point in tightening rules if existing ones are not enforced. Nothing I have suggested above could not be done under existing Remain status.
Three immensely privileged white men in suits, at least one of whom having failed at politics in this country went on to enjoy a richly rewarded career courtesy of the EU, telling the 'little people' how to vote. What could possibly go wrong?
So they are more popular than LEAVErs. This is their edge. The LEAVE edge is that the ideas of sovereignty and independence are more appealling.
Cameron's popularity is gospel on PB when discussing the Conservatives, but immediately forgotten when discussing REMAIN.
I cannot see Farage in the picture. Surely that is whom you describe?
Neil Kinnock, for all his faults, brought Labour back from the abyss, and set in place the foundations of the 1997 landslide. His record is not of failure.
Linking this to my complaint about visas for spouses of citizens. How does a British Citizen feel when after working abroad for five years he has to leave his wife behind for 6-12 months while he builds up enough UK earnings, and yet we have 100,000 non-citizens in the UK that have failed all levels of appeal against their failed asylum claim, and yet are still in the country, often at the expense of the public purse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36060204
"Potemkin olive groves". Brilliant.
Which is fine. But I think we can do it better. You just don't see the need, because you live a lifestyle that never comes into contact with the darker side of immigration. So do I, as a matter of fact, but I recognise it might be a big problem for some people.
'Hello, is that Silvio? It's Tessa calling from London. No, I'm not interested in mortgages, can I talk to you about Europe...'
@paddyashdown: Brexit: Bnk of England wrong. IMF wrong. NATO wrong. EU wrong. C'wealth wrong Obama wrong. Boris right OK But wld you bet the country on it?
They are not pompoms...
For Boris Johnson to overlook the fact that the USA is a country that was formed from a group of separate states that consciously came together is amazingly ignorant on his part.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/276469-louisiana-delegates-media-is-falsely-reporting-were-with
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/04/expect_louisiana_delegates_to.html
https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/ron-pauls-lost-delegates-why-they-may-decide-the-2016-gop-nomination/
I agree with what Randy Evans said, Trump could finish at 1100 bound delegates and still win on the first ballot.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-necessary-delegate-number-221884
Mr. F, Cameron's entirely responsible for his loss of standing. He's acted with a mixture of arrogance, complacency and incompetence in recent months.
Edited extra bit: the reply to Mr. Meeks was perhaps ill-tempered. But sneering is not an endearing approach.
Mr. Meeks (2), the EU and US situations are radically different. The comparison is ridiculous.
"Met figures show that Romanians are disproportionately more likely to be arrested compared with the citizens of many other countries."
"the average Romanian is more likely to be arrested than the average Pole."
"In 2012 Det Chief Insp Paul Barnard, then head of Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit, told an ITV documentary: “The fact is 92 per cent of all ATM fraud we see in this country is committed by Romanian nationals. Very, very tight communities, very tight gangs.”
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-romanian-crimewave/18207
The world isn't big enough for both Islam and Western secularism. Or is it?
Incidentally, the fact that Canada is not part of the USA is not for want of effort on the USA's part.
The things that have changed are that his luck has begun to run out and the Lincoln's maxim about fooling people.
https://www.facebook.com/MrJohnRentoul/posts/1605679569755192
Betting PostF1: backed Alonso for points at 2.62.
Hulkenberg has a 3 place grid penalty, so Alonso starts 11th, and his car is probably faster than that (a red flag stopped him completing a final flying lap in qualifying).
Pre-race piece won't be up for a while yet, so I'm mentioning this now.
But the plebs of PB are allowed to talk about how international trade agreements will happen, despite them have no qualifications to talk about such things.
I love it.
Nice.
Instead they told us:
The banks are well run
There will not be a recession in 2008
Politicians expenses are honest
Elections in Tower Hamlets and fair
Nothing is happening in Rotherham
Stafford hospital is safe
Kids company is a deserving charity
There will be no more than 15,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe
Saddam Hussein has WMD
A load of questions on the next lot of air pollution negs.
Just curious, as the schoolgirl said to the nun.
I took the lead from that.
He was very blinky in the Laura K interview - I don't think he particularly believes what he's saying (but I think that would be the same if he was arguing unequivocally for Remain), but he is warming to his theme, he is getting out of second gear, and good for him.
[There were also military tribunes, of course].
One forgives your mistake on classical history. Again
'I will resign if I don't win Thanet South'
But you could also say that politicians have no qualifications to talk about much of what they're responsible for.
He can be forgiven for blinking
As you go through life, the times when the establishment proves to be less than honest mount up.
Eventually it reaches someone's tipping point.
But is anyone here saying that we should trust what Farage has to say about the EU because he's leader of UKIP ?
There's plenty of people saying we should trust what the establishment is saying about the EU simply because it is the establishment.