Mr. K, may well be part of the social shift due to growing up online. In a world where people are moderated, blocked, reported and can be made to go away by clicking X, and where Twitter/Facebook easily facilitate echo chambers where all share a single opinion, rocking the boat is seen not as an act of rebellion against the Evil Parents' Generation but a way of getting kicked out of your social circle.
That's my guess, anyway. Quite glad to be part of the last generation that grew up without having the internet.
Mr. Meeks, if of mythical beasts we must speak, then where is the protection for the City of London? Presumably it's over there, being carried on the back of that unicorn.
Mr. Indigo, Pong is clearly superior to unpacking.
Mr. K, first games I played were on an Amstrad, on cassette tape. They took 30 minutes to load. Used to put one in then go and read a book for a while.
Amstrad? Terrible machine IIRC. To call it a computer was farfetched. How Sugar made a profit on the thing, still amazes me.
Robinson seized upon the negative first, but to be fair to Gove he made the most attractive pitch to me.
@norock: "We could be like Canada" says Gove "Canada have to pay tariffs" "We wouldn't have to be like Canada" says Gove
If that's "the most attractive pitch", I have a bridge you may be interested in...
You do realise that quoting twitter does not win an argument, right?
If he stopped quoting non-entities on Twitter he would have almost nothing to say, and the number of posts on a thread would half (and the information density double)
Morning all, and well done Mike on the 33/1 bet. Sadiq is starting to look like a dead cert now, unless someone can find a smoking gun in his past associations.
The Tories should have gone for a much bigger personality for their candidate, Shaun Bailey would have been much better at covering the centre ground in 2016's multicultural London.
Shaun Bailey lost the one time he stood for Parliament at Hammersmith in 2010
And the feedback has been consistently negative about him since. He wanted to become the Kensington & Chelsea candidate & he was slammed by some of the people I asked about him.
Given your negative comments from the ground on both Bailey and Goldsmith, who would have been your ideal Tory candidate for MoL given that Boris declined to stand again?
Starting the referendum campaign early will cost a lot of Conservatives electoral success this May. Political stupidity.
I completely agree. I was very surprised when the referendum was called for June. The Tories should have waited for the summer before going nuts.
They didn't want it during the summer in case the migration crisis had reached End Of Days levels.
I know. Which is why they should have focussed on solving the migration crisis first. It was both more important and more urgent.
There was an interesting report from Italy on this morning's Today programme about the impact of migration on Italy, particularly on Sicily. They feel abandoned. One of the imams in a mosque in Rome opined that one of the reasons Italy had not had the same problems as Belgium and France was because there had not developed the sort of ghettos there were in those two countries, though I think numbers may also have had something to do with it.
Anyway, the Italians want a similar arrangement to that in place for the Greek border. All that's happened is that the problem has been displaced and they are now bearing the brunt of, so far, largely sub-Saharan African migration.
Mr. P, you've quite accidentally completely missed the point, namely that *we* are between Iceland and Turkey. Whether Canada pays a tariff isn't my concern, or what this referendum is about.
Except that is entirely the point. Mr Gove said we could be like Canada
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Grieve on Gove "The examples put forward by Michael are general in their nature, do not stand up to scrutiny and seem to be the product of single issue obsession"
Mr. K, ha, I have vague memories of it being rubbish.
Cartridge games were better.
Mr. Abroad, I recall the massive blocky pixellated graphics, of one karate game in particular. And yet, from there (and earlier, of course) we now have games like The Witcher 3.
If he stopped quoting non-entities on Twitter he would have almost nothing to say, and the number of posts on a thread would half (and the information density double)
Sorry, I am struggling with the "information density" of this post.
I get the dense bit, still looking for the information
Morning all, and well done Mike on the 33/1 bet. Sadiq is starting to look like a dead cert now, unless someone can find a smoking gun in his past associations.
The Tories should have gone for a much bigger personality for their candidate, Shaun Bailey would have been much better at covering the centre ground in 2016's multicultural London.
Shaun Bailey lost the one time he stood for Parliament at Hammersmith in 2010
And the feedback has been consistently negative about him since. He wanted to become the Kensington & Chelsea candidate & he was slammed by some of the people I asked about him.
I doubt any Tory would win this year, other than maybe Boris if he ran again
Zac is good man
How can someone who cheats on his wife, with three children under 10, be described as a "good man"?
Mr. P, you've failed to address the question twice. If there's no tariff from Iceland to Turkey or anywhere in between, why do you think the UK would be singled out for one to the detriment of our own trade and also the trade of the EU?
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
@raphaelbehr: Gove's account of UK-EU trade relations post-Brext: Like Canada, but not Canada. Better in indescribable ways. Imagine a good thing. That.
A company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is.
Ah, but that undertaking bought my family two nice houses
Mr. P, you've failed to address the question twice. If there's no tariff from Iceland to Turkey or anywhere in between, why do you think the UK would be singled out for one to the detriment of our own trade and also the trade of the EU?
Robinson seized upon the negative first, but to be fair to Gove he made the most attractive pitch to me.
@norock: "We could be like Canada" says Gove "Canada have to pay tariffs" "We wouldn't have to be like Canada" says Gove
If that's "the most attractive pitch", I have a bridge you may be interested in...
You do realise that quoting twitter does not win an argument, right?
If he stopped quoting non-entities on Twitter he would have almost nothing to say, and the number of posts on a thread would half (and the information density double)
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Morning all, and well done Mike on the 33/1 bet. Sadiq is starting to look like a dead cert now, unless someone can find a smoking gun in his past associations.
The Tories should have gone for a much bigger personality for their candidate, Shaun Bailey would have been much better at covering the centre ground in 2016's multicultural London.
Shaun Bailey lost the one time he stood for Parliament at Hammersmith in 2010
And the feedback has been consistently negative about him since. He wanted to become the Kensington & Chelsea candidate & he was slammed by some of the people I asked about him.
How do you plan to vote yourself in May?
I don't like Sadiq Khan. Too many associations with dodgy people. They may, of course, all be entirely innocent, but there's a pattern that I don't like. Additionally, I don't like his views on sub-dividing the electorate into little segments and judging them like that. Quotas are a disgrace, as far as I am concerned: everyone should be judged on their merits and purely their merits, nothing else.
My issues with Zac are entirely personal. He cheated on his wife. Alice is just as culpable, and my sympathy because of Amschel doesn't stretch that far.
I think he will be an indifferent mayor, at best, but not positively harmful (assuming that Cameron has the guts to deliver on Heathrow). Sadiq will be divisive and damaging to our great city.
But it's a very reluctant vote. If I didn't believe in the importance of voting as a matter of principle I might well abstain.
(That said, I don't know any of the minority candidates, so I'm open to suggestions. Very happy to put Zac second or third preference...)
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
Of course he can. We are perfectly entitled to treat his views with the same response as American voters showed Guardian letter writers and vote in our own interests too.
The only area Canada has to pay tariffs on long term is agriculture, in which we have a major trade deficit with the EU. Even if we avoid them, we will still not be able to sell to the continent because of the huge CAP subsidies. It is therefore a meaningless distraction.
Mr. P, you've failed to address the question twice. If there's no tariff from Iceland to Turkey or anywhere in between, why do you think the UK would be singled out for one to the detriment of our own trade and also the trade of the EU?
It was Michael Gove who suggested it, not me
For one who claims to wish a plague on both their houses I'm surprised at the lack of cutting and pasting on comments saying Osborne'd projects are crap. Anyway I've fished one out to helped undecideds like yourself get a balanced picture.
Starting the referendum campaign early will cost a lot of Conservatives electoral success this May. Political stupidity.
I completely agree. I was very surprised when the referendum was called for June. The Tories should have waited for the summer before going nuts.
Cameron isn't concerned with the locals. He learned the lesson of 1975 - that governments actually win referendums before the campaign starts and the legal rules are in place. That way you have the power of the state utilised before the opposing side are even given access to the resources they are allowed to spend.
He intends to win this referendum, whatever the cost. He is almost certainly an ideological Europhile, not the soft sceptic he pretended to be to get elected in 2005.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
When was the last time a British PM told the American public which way they should vote?
Never. It is mere pathetic subservience by the Europhiles. They have been taking orders from Brussels for so long, they can not comprehend why anyone would struggle with taking orders from Washington. It is similar to how they so approvingly support the anti democratic nature of EU governance, they do not blink at buying a vote with taxpayer funds.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
Sadly, Shadsy appears to have discontinued Ladbrokes' referendum bet of backing REMAIN coupled with the turnout being below 65% where I took their odds of 5/4. This equated to both elements being priced at 1/2 and therefore represented decent value imho.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion calls from Putin ....
Starting the referendum campaign early will cost a lot of Conservatives electoral success this May. Political stupidity.
I completely agree. I was very surprised when the referendum was called for June. The Tories should have waited for the summer before going nuts.
Cameron isn't concerned with the locals. He learned the lesson of 1975 - that governments actually win referendums before the campaign starts and the legal rules are in place. That way you have the power of the state utilised before the opposing side are even given access to the resources they are allowed to spend.
He intends to win this referendum, whatever the cost. He is almost certainly an ideological Europhile, not the soft sceptic he pretended to be to get elected in 2005.
For people like Cameron, Crabb etc. the EU is far more important than the Conservative party. This is why Gove and Johnson are making a mistake in putting their leaders' reputation above national independence. It is a courtesy that is not extended the other way.
I don't like Sadiq Khan. Too many associations with dodgy people. They may, of course, all be entirely innocent, but there's a pattern that I don't like. Additionally, I don't like his views on sub-dividing the electorate into little segments and judging them like that. Quotas are a disgrace, as far as I am concerned: everyone should be judged on their merits and purely their merits, nothing else.
My issues with Zac are entirely personal. He cheated on his wife. Alice is just as culpable, and my sympathy because of Amschel doesn't stretch that far.
I think he will be an indifferent mayor, at best, but not positively harmful (assuming that Cameron has the guts to deliver on Heathrow). Sadiq will be divisive and damaging to our great city.
But it's a very reluctant vote. If I didn't believe in the importance of voting as a matter of principle I might well abstain.
(That said, I don't know any of the minority candidates, so I'm open to suggestions. Very happy to put Zac second or third preference...)
That expresses my views very well. I think Zac is a ho-hum candidate and if there were an alternative I would go for them.
In addition to the concerns you have expressed about Khan I would add two: he's on record as being in favour of an Islamic blasphemy law - an absolute abomination as far as I'm concerned. No set of ideas should be protected like that. Also, back in 2004 he publicly dismissed the concerns raised before a Parliamentary select committee about Al-Qaradawi, the preacher invited in by Livingstone. Many many people objected to him because of what he had said about suicide bombing, beating women, stoning, killing Jews and gays and all the dismal rest of it and Khan's response was the usual evasive "oh he must have been misquoted/taken out of context etc". Far from being the candidate who will take the fight to the extremists it seems to me he will do no such thing - certainly based on his past record - and is more likely to give them, through inaction, more space to flourish. It also raises real questions about his judgment. At this time above all we need a Mayor who clearly understands the dividing line between those who are on the side of evil and those who are not and whose actions are in line with their words. Khan's words recently have sounded good (particularly on anti-Semitism) so I am happy to praise him on that but I still have doubts whether he will really follow through and will really confront his own followers and co-religionists on the perils and evils of extremism.
Spurs last night was the best away performance I've seen in years, those of us who've endured decades of disappointment are drooling right now. Chelsea play 19 games at home, to their fans the Spurs game is the biggest, going there and listening to a section of their vile fans hissing is disgusting. They'll roll over if it comes down to the last game of the season, but to be fair Leicester should have done enough by then.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
The USA is a strange beast when it comes to European politics. I wrote a piece on it for my blog back in February. The conclusion that I reached after a lot of research is that the American people are anglophile, almost to a fault, but the US political elite are anything but and in general have a very anti British approach to international policy, and seek purely to use Britain as a tool for their own gain.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
When was the last time a British PM told the American public which way they should vote?
Never. It is mere pathetic subservience by the Europhiles. They have been taking orders from Brussels for so long, they can not comprehend why anyone would struggle with taking orders from Washington. It is similar to how they so approvingly support the anti democratic nature of EU governance, they do not blink at buying a vote with taxpayer funds.
Yes. It's pretty dispiriting to see a British PM and government parroting propaganda to please overseas interests. We more or less have a puppet government at present.
Mr. P, you've quite accidentally completely missed the point, namely that *we* are between Iceland and Turkey. Whether Canada pays a tariff isn't my concern, or what this referendum is about.
Except that is entirely the point. Mr Gove said we could be like Canada
Only a fool would think 2% of goods that cover tariffs are more the point than the 98% of goods that do not. Although leading Europhile George Osborne claims the EEA does not provide any benefits for services beyond WTO rules, so trade literacy is obviously thin on the ground among pro-EU politicians.
Morning all, and well done Mike on the 33/1 bet. Sadiq is starting to look like a dead cert now, unless someone can find a smoking gun in his past associations.
The Tories should have gone for a much bigger personality for their candidate, Shaun Bailey would have been much better at covering the centre ground in 2016's multicultural London.
Shaun Bailey lost the one time he stood for Parliament at Hammersmith in 2010
Yes he did and it was a huge disappointment. Nothing wrong with contesting and losing a seat.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion calls from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
Oddly enough a few of Putin's little helpers are LEAVErs
Well, here it is, I have decided to vote to remain on the 23rd June. This has been quite the most difficult decision I have made in a very long time. My heart absolutely demands that we leave the nightmare that is the EU with the unelected eurocrats, red tape, European Court and indeed everything that is so wrong at the present time. However my head says that there is simply too much evidence to support the economic argument that we derive huge commercial benefits from our membership and that this is endorsed by so many organisations and Countries that it is not possible to continue to say that it is just 'project fear'. Furthermore, leave have not been able to convince me that they will be able to control immigration and without that there is no point in facing the years of uncertainty that would inevitably follow an exit. I do believe that the UK within the EU can have an impact on the organisation as it faces the many uncertainties the next few years will bring and that strong alliances can be forged to change the face of Europe. David Cameron is widely respected in Europe and he would return to the EU as the inevitable successor to the disaster that is Angela Merkel, and hopefully with a unified much more eurosceptic cabinet. Europe is changing to a much more sceptical population and I am not at all certain that the eurozone itself will survive and certainly I am convinced that Turkey will not obtain membership for decades. I know some on this forum will say that I have always been remain but that is just not true. I hope the leavers will respect my decision and that we can continue our inputs without unnecessary abuse and with respect for each other positions.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
Personally, I couldn't care less about what foreign leaders say. They're part of the background. I'm not a great believer in doing things just because someone important says so.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion calls from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
Oddly enough a few of Putin's little helpers are LEAVErs
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
When was the last time a British PM told the American public which way they should vote?
Never. It is mere pathetic subservience by the Europhiles. They have been taking orders from Brussels for so long, they can not comprehend why anyone would struggle with taking orders from Washington. It is similar to how they so approvingly support the anti democratic nature of EU governance, they do not blink at buying a vote with taxpayer funds.
We more or less have a puppet government at present.
Well, here it is, I have decided to vote to remain on the 23rd June. This has been quite the most difficult decision I have made in a very long time. My heart absolutely demands that we leave the nightmare that is the EU with the unelected eurocrats, red tape, European Court and indeed everything that is so wrong at the present time. However my head says that there is simply too much evidence to support the economic argument that we derive huge commercial benefits from our membership and that this is endorsed by so many organisations and Countries that it is not possible to continue to say that it is just 'project fear'. Furthermore, leave have not been able to convince me that they will be able to control immigration and without that there is no point in facing the years of uncertainty that would inevitably follow an exit. I do believe that the UK within the EU can have an impact on the organisation as it faces the many uncertainties the next few years will bring and that strong alliances can be forged to change the face of Europe. David Cameron is widely respected in Europe and he would return to the EU as the inevitable successor to the disaster that is Angela Merkel, and hopefully with a unified much more eurosceptic cabinet. Europe is changing to a much more sceptical population and I am not at all certain that the eurozone itself will survive and certainly I am convinced that Turkey will not obtain membership for decades. I know some on this forum will say that I have always been remain but that is just not true. I hope the leavers will respect my decision and that we can continue our inputs without unnecessary abuse and with respect for each other positions.
I heartily endorse your last sentence and thank you for such a heartfelt explanation.
One very small point: Cameron will not be around for much longer. Even if he stayed until 2019, say, that will not give him very much time to change matters within Europe and I am intrigued that you think of him as a sort of post-Merkel European leader.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
Personally, I couldn't care less about what foreign leaders say. They're part of the background. I'm not a great believer in doing things just because someone important says so.
For some reason the LEAVE campaign and some LEAVErs seem to care very very deeply- oh well, why deal with substance when you can focus on process?
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
When was the last time a British PM told the American public which way they should vote?
Never. It is mere pathetic subservience by the Europhiles. They have been taking orders from Brussels for so long, they can not comprehend why anyone would struggle with taking orders from Washington. It is similar to how they so approvingly support the anti democratic nature of EU governance, they do not blink at buying a vote with taxpayer funds.
Yes. It's pretty dispiriting to see a British PM and government parroting propaganda to please overseas interests. We more or less have a puppet government at present.
It's also a bit of an odd situation, Obama being utilised in the EU debate, when he (and his predecessors) have done more to destabilise the EU than just about anyone with their Middle Eastern policy and the Greenspan easy money boom.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
Personally, I couldn't care less about what foreign leaders say. They're part of the background. I'm not a great believer in doing things just because someone important says so.
If we must have endorsements, I think Remain should focus on getting Britons speaking in the British interest.
I am amused that people think that the opinions of President Putin, I am not aware he has opinion, or Obama have any great effect, or indeed that they do in the direction they believe. Oddball obsessives tend not to be representative, as the Dutch referendum showed.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
When was the last time a British PM told the American public which way they should vote?
Never. It is mere pathetic subservience by the Europhiles. They have been taking orders from Brussels for so long, they can not comprehend why anyone would struggle with taking orders from Washington. It is similar to how they so approvingly support the anti democratic nature of EU governance, they do not blink at buying a vote with taxpayer funds.
We more or less have a puppet government at present.
Well, here it is, I have decided to vote to remain on the 23rd June. This has been quite the most difficult decision I have made in a very long time. My heart absolutely demands that we leave the nightmare that is the EU with the unelected eurocrats, red tape, European Court and indeed everything that is so wrong at the present time. However my head says that there is simply too much evidence to support the economic argument that we derive huge commercial benefits from our membership and that this is endorsed by so many organisations and Countries that it is not possible to continue to say that it is just 'project fear'. Furthermore, leave have not been able to convince me that they will be able to control immigration and without that there is no point in facing the years of uncertainty that would inevitably follow an exit. I do believe that the UK within the EU can have an impact on the organisation as it faces the many uncertainties the next few years will bring and that strong alliances can be forged to change the face of Europe. David Cameron is widely respected in Europe and he would return to the EU as the inevitable successor to the disaster that is Angela Merkel, and hopefully with a unified much more eurosceptic cabinet. Europe is changing to a much more sceptical population and I am not at all certain that the eurozone itself will survive and certainly I am convinced that Turkey will not obtain membership for decades. I know some on this forum will say that I have always been remain but that is just not true. I hope the leavers will respect my decision and that we can continue our inputs without unnecessary abuse and with respect for each other positions.
I heartily endorse your last sentence and thank you for such a heartfelt explanation.
One very small point: Cameron will not be around for much longer. Even if he stayed until 2019, say, that will not give him very much time to change matters within Europe and I am intrigued that you think of him as a sort of post-Merkel European leader.
Thank you for your kind comments. I do accept David Cameron will only have a few years at best but I would hope that a strong eurosceptic would either lead the party or would have direct responsibility for Europe once he stands down
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
Personally, I couldn't care less about what foreign leaders say. They're part of the background. I'm not a great believer in doing things just because someone important says so.
It's likely that JackW, being a Scot, is used to doing as he's told by foreigners. It's in the blood.
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
The USA is a strange beast when it comes to European politics. I wrote a piece on it for my blog back in February. The conclusion that I reached after a lot of research is that the American people are anglophile, almost to a fault, but the US political elite are anything but and in general have a very anti British approach to international policy, and seek purely to use Britain as a tool for their own gain.
The so-called "special relationship" has always struck me as a sort of British delusion to cover up the fact that from the start of the 20th century, if not before, the US was determined to supplant Britain as the premier power in the world. Even during WW2, the US looked to its own interests and did whatever it could to help dismantle Britain's Empire. It made Britain pay for the help it got. There was very little altruism involved. And that has been the case ever since. At times our interests have coincided. But that is no different to any other country. Instead of all this sentimental nonsense about special relationships, whether with the US or the EU or China or The Serene Republic of Ruritania, we should simply remember and act on Palmerston's dictum.
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
The USA is a strange beast when it comes to European politics. I wrote a piece on it for my blog back in February. The conclusion that I reached after a lot of research is that the American people are anglophile, almost to a fault, but the US political elite are anything but and in general have a very anti British approach to international policy, and seek purely to use Britain as a tool for their own gain.
The so-called "special relationship" has always struck me as a sort of British delusion to cover up the fact that from the start of the 20th century, if not before, the US was determined to supplant Britain as the premier power in the world. Even during WW2, the US looked to its own interests and did whatever it could to help dismantle Britain's Empire. It made Britain pay for the help it got. There was very little altruism involved. And that has been the case ever since. At times our interests have coincided. But that is no different to any other country. Instead of all this sentimental nonsense about special relationships, whether with the US or the EU or China or The Serene Republic of Ruritania, we should simply remember and act on Palmerston's dictum.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn,
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" -
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion calls from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
Oddly enough a few of Putin's little helpers are LEAVErs
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn,
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" -
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
Personally, I couldn't care less about what foreign leaders say. They're part of the background.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a diffe hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
Personally, I couldn't care less about what foreign leaders say. They're part of the background. I'm not a great believer in doing things just because someone important says so.
For some reason the LEAVE campaign and some LEAVErs seem to care very very deeply- oh well, why deal with substance when you can focus on process?
The more I see posts like that the more I wonder how Cameron can put his party back together again.
Remain have been favourites to win and still are, so I would have thought a bit of "letting them get it out of their system " would have been the approach of a relaxed winner. But the cons on both sides are letting it descend in to pointless rancour and the leadership team is egging it on.
I can no more see the Tories being one big happy family post EUref than the Scots post Indyref.
Leavers should just calm down about Obama. He is entitled to tell us what he thinks. We are entitled to ignore him. The Guardian -bless them-sent 14000 letters to Clark County Ohio in 2004 telling them to vote against Bush. Recently some of our MPs spent hours expressing their abhorrence of Donald Trump. The Americans ignored it on both occasions. Leavers come over increasingly like old men in a perpetual rage waiting for the next chance to take offence. If you don't like what Obama says ignore it.
The more I see posts like that one below the more I wonder how Cameron can put his party back together again.
Remain have been favourites to win and still are, so I would have thought a bit of "letting them get it out of their system " would have been the approach of a relaxed winner. But the cons on both sides are letting it descend in to pointless rancour and the leadership team is egging it on.
I can no more see the Tories being one big happy family post EUref than the Scots post Indyref.
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
When was the last time a British PM told the American public which way they should vote?
With the exception of Blair (who many probably think is still in charge), most Americans wouldn't have a clue who the British Prime Minister is currently.
Show them a clip of Cameron, and they'll likely assume he's the Queen's butler.
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
The USA is a strange beast when it comes to European politics. I wrote a piece on it for my blog back in February. The conclusion that I reached after a lot of research is that the American people are anglophile, almost to a fault, but the US political elite are anything but and in general have a very anti British approach to international policy, and seek purely to use Britain as a tool for their own gain.
The so-called "special relationship" has always struck me as a sort of British delusion to cover up the fact that from the start of the 20th century, if not before, the US was determined to supplant Britain as the premier power in the world. Even during WW2, the US looked to its own interests and did whatever it could to help dismantle Britain's Empire. It made Britain pay for the help it got. There was very little altruism involved. And that has been the case ever since. At times our interests have coincided. But that is no different to any other country. Instead of all this sentimental nonsense about special relationships, whether with the US or the EU or China or The Serene Republic of Ruritania, we should simply remember and act on Palmerston's dictum.
In general terms you are quite correct- though there is I think a "special relationship" when it comes to intelligence- and cooperation between the military- but politicians, quite rightly pursue their own national interest.
I suspect American national interest Is to see a Britain in the EU holding the open trade line and fending off the protectionists - and in the short term don't want to see one of their reliable military allies severely distracted by BREXIT.
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
The USA is a strange beast when it comes to European politics. I wrote a piece on it for my blog back in February. The conclusion that I reached after a lot of research is that the American people are anglophile, almost to a fault, but the US political elite are anything but and in general have a very anti British approach to international policy, and seek purely to use Britain as a tool for their own gain.
The so-called "special relationship" has always struck me as a sort of British delusion to cover up the fact that from the start of the 20th century, if not before, the US was determined to supplant Britain as the premier power in the world. .......
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going to Germany and this trip was tagged on to include lunch with the queen at Windsor the day after her 90th - ( Michelle is flying in for that and dinner with the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge) - so is Obama not allowed an opinion on what is in American interests?
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion calls from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
Putin - Obama - now which one will the average Jo back I wonder
I am amused that people think that the opinions of President Putin, I am not aware he has opinion, or Obama have any great effect, or indeed that they do in the direction they believe. Oddball obsessives tend not to be representative, as the Dutch referendum showed.
Many people unfortunately have such a follower-type personality, choices are only about which leader to follow. Just as their fashion as a teenager was determined by who was the appropriate cool kid to copy, they can only conceive of a referendum on British independence as a choice between which foreign leader to obey. The concept of making an independent decision based on evidence and reason is beyond them.
Now I have heard it all...Royal College of Midwives have come out against leaving because "EU regulations ensure women get time off for anti-natal classes".
If the government tried to scrap that, MumNet pitchfork brigade would riot within seconds.
The more I see posts like that one below the more I wonder how Cameron can put his party back together again.
Remain have been favourites to win and still are, so I would have thought a bit of "letting them get it out of their system " would have been the approach of a relaxed winner. But the cons on both sides are letting it descend in to pointless rancour and the leadership team is egging it on.
I can no more see the Tories being one big happy family post EUref than the Scots post Indyref.
Cameron can't fix the party. If he'd stepped back to the sidelines, and let someone else front the Remain campaign, that might have been possible. But not now. It's a thankless task for a less divisive figure.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion calls from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
I'm not altogether sure it is in their interests. I think that remains (arf) to be seen. There is a meme that we're being browbeaten into Remaining by establishment figures.
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
The USA is a strange beast when it comes to European politics. I wrote a piece on it for my blog back in February. The conclusion that I reached after a lot of research is that the American people are anglophile, almost to a fault, but the US political elite are anything but and in general have a very anti British approach to international policy, and seek purely to use Britain as a tool for their own gain.
The so-called "special relationship" has always struck me as a sort of British delusion to cover up the fact that from the start of the 20th century, if not before, the US was determined to supplant Britain as the premier power in the world. Even during WW2, the US looked to its own interests and did whatever it could to help dismantle Britain's Empire. It made Britain pay for the help it got. There was very little altruism involved. And that has been the case ever since. At times our interests have coincided. But that is no different to any other country. Instead of all this sentimental nonsense about special relationships, whether with the US or the EU or China or The Serene Republic of Ruritania, we should simply remember and act on Palmerston's dictum.
In general terms you are quite correct- though there is I think a "special relationship" when it comes to intelligence- and cooperation between the military- but politicians, quite rightly pursue their own national interest.
I suspect American national interest Is to see a Britain in the EU holding the open trade line and fending off the protectionists - and in the short term don't want to see one of their reliable military allies severely distracted by BREXIT.
I think De Gaulle was probably right about the reasons he vetoed our application back in the day. CDG always put France first.
The more I see posts like that one below the more I wonder how Cameron can put his party back together again.
Remain have been favourites to win and still are, so I would have thought a bit of "letting them get it out of their system " would have been the approach of a relaxed winner. But the cons on both sides are letting it descend in to pointless rancour and the leadership team is egging it on.
I can no more see the Tories being one big happy family post EUref than the Scots post Indyref.
I have been surprised and disappointed at how quickly its descended into rancor- I was also disappointed at I thought Gove's fair to poor performance on R4 - I had hoped a LEAVE grown up would come out with more than platitudes and numbers which have been extensively debunked (the £350 million, which Robinson picked him up on).
Possibly even more depressing than SINDYREF - whodathunkit? At least it's only 9 weeks....
Well, here it is, I have decided to vote to remain on the 23rd June. This has been quite the most difficult decision I have made in a very long time. My heart absolutely demands that we leave the nightmare that is the EU with the unelected eurocrats, red tape, European Court and indeed everything that is so wrong at the present time. However my head says that there is simply too much evidence to support the economic argument that we derive huge commercial benefits from our membership and that this is endorsed by so many organisations and Countries that it is not possible to continue to say that it is just 'project fear'. Furthermore, leave have not been able to convince me that they will be able to control immigration and without that there is no point in facing the years of uncertainty that would inevitably follow an exit. I do believe that the UK within the EU can have an impact on the organisation as it faces the many uncertainties the next few years will bring and that strong alliances can be forged to change the face of Europe. David Cameron is widely respected in Europe and he would return to the EU as the inevitable successor to the disaster that is Angela Merkel, and hopefully with a unified much more eurosceptic cabinet. Europe is changing to a much more sceptical population and I am not at all certain that the eurozone itself will survive and certainly I am convinced that Turkey will not obtain membership for decades. I know some on this forum will say that I have always been remain but that is just not true. I hope the leavers will respect my decision and that we can continue our inputs without unnecessary abuse and with respect for each other positions.
OMG Cameron fanboy opts for Remain and attempts to justify it.
Just man up and tell the truth ffs, that way you'll get more respect and less abuse
.......British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues. Our Parliament has even held a debate on the deficiencies of Donald Trump.
So it would be a bit rich for us, opining as we do on every aspect of America’s relations with other states, to turn all precious and sensitive when American leaders comment on ours.
Dominic Grieve taking apart Gove's argument on 5 Eyes and other justice issues.
There's a difference to holding forth on the policy of another nation and making a trip and announcement to it to speak directly to the people of that nation about it.
Obama is not "making a trip" - he's going what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion calls from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
Putin - Obama - now which one will the average Jo back I wonder
depends what for.
Nicey waffle - Obama. Bombing the shit out ISIS - Putin
Just to remind PBers and others that the EU Dream of a European Empire. Was also Hitlers and Fascists dream. Sans Jews of course. Oh and sans Democracy, Labour Unions, Communists, etc., and sans anyone who disagreed with the governing Oligarchy. https://twitter.com/steven_winstone/status/722314521541484544
Do you really think you are doing Leave any favours by comparing the EU to Hitler's Third Reich? To the vast majority of voters it's bonkers.
Well, here it is, I have decided to vote to remain on the 23rd June. This has been quite the most difficult decision I have made in a very long time. My heart absolutely demands that we leave the nightmare that is the EU with the unelected eurocrats, red tape, European Court and indeed everything that is so wrong at the present time. However my head says that there is simply too much evidence to support the economic argument that we derive huge commercial benefits from our membership and that this is endorsed by so many organisations and Countries that it is not possible to continue to say that it is just 'project fear'. Furthermore, leave have not been able to convince me that they will be able to control immigration and without that there is no point in facing the years of uncertainty that would inevitably follow an exit. I do believe that the UK within the EU can have an impact on the organisation as it faces the many uncertainties the next few years will bring and that strong alliances can be forged to change the face of Europe. David Cameron is widely respected in Europe and he would return to the EU as the inevitable successor to the disaster that is Angela Merkel, and hopefully with a unified much more eurosceptic cabinet. Europe is changing to a much more sceptical population and I am not at all certain that the eurozone itself will survive and certainly I am convinced that Turkey will not obtain membership for decades. I know some on this forum will say that I have always been remain but that is just not true. I hope the leavers will respect my decision and that we can continue our inputs without unnecessary abuse and with respect for each other positions.
Thank you for sharing those thoughts - v interesting.
As to your point about immigration, speaking to a lot of leavers, it seems that it is arguably only here in the rarified atmosphere of PB that people are prepared to put up with EEA/EFTA and the continued four freedoms, in particular of people. Most people I speak to (= anecdote obvs), really do care about immigration and control of our borders.
Any scenario that ignores that in the event of a Leave vote will not end well.
Obama is visibly making a huge mistake by interfering in the referendum. The UK has been a stalwart ally of the United States. This has been due to strong support on the right overcoming the anti-Americanism of the left. But now he is offending the British right wing, putting them off.
Well, here it is, I have decided to vote to remain on the 23rd June. This has been quite the most difficult decision I have made in a very long time. My heart absolutely demands that we leave the nightmare that is the EU with the unelected eurocrats, red tape, European Court and indeed everything that is so wrong at the present time. However my head says that there is simply too much evidence to support the economic argument that we derive huge commercial benefits from our membership and that this is endorsed by so many organisations and Countries that it is not possible to continue to say that it is just 'project fear'. Furthermore, leave have not been able to convince me that they will be able to control immigration and without that there is no point in facing the years of uncertainty that would inevitably follow an exit. I do believe that the UK within the EU can have an impact on the organisation as it faces the many uncertainties the next few years will bring and that strong alliances can be forged to change the face of Europe. David Cameron is widely respected in Europe and he would return to the EU as the inevitable successor to the disaster that is Angela Merkel, and hopefully with a unified much more eurosceptic cabinet. Europe is changing to a much more sceptical population and I am not at all certain that the eurozone itself will survive and certainly I am convinced that Turkey will not obtain membership for decades. I know some on this forum will say that I have always been remain but that is just not true. I hope the leavers will respect my decision and that we can continue our inputs without unnecessary abuse and with respect for each other positions.
OMG Cameron fanboy opts for Remain and attempts to justify it.
Just man up and tell the truth ffs, that way you'll get more respect and less abuse
If you have read my comments you will see the turmoil in my decision. I recognise that some from leave would not be happy but I would draw your attention to my last sentence.
Well, here it is, I have decided to vote to remain on the 23rd June. This has been quite the most difficult decision I have made in a very long time. My heart absolutely demands that we leave the nightmare that is the EU with the unelected eurocrats, red tape, European Court and indeed everything that is so wrong at the present time. However my head says that there is simply too much evidence to support the economic argument that we derive huge commercial benefits from our membership and that this is endorsed by so many organisations and Countries that it is not possible to continue to say that it is just 'project fear'. Furthermore, leave have not been able to convince me that they will be able to control immigration and without that there is no point in facing the years of uncertainty that would inevitably follow an exit. I do believe that the UK within the EU can have an impact on the organisation as it faces the many uncertainties the next few years will bring and that strong alliances can be forged to change the face of Europe. David Cameron is widely respected in Europe and he would return to the EU as the inevitable successor to the disaster that is Angela Merkel, and hopefully with a unified much more eurosceptic cabinet. Europe is changing to a much more sceptical population and I am not at all certain that the eurozone itself will survive and certainly I am convinced that Turkey will not obtain membership for decades. I know some on this forum will say that I have always been remain but that is just not true. I hope the leavers will respect my decision and that we can continue our inputs without unnecessary abuse and with respect for each other positions.
OMG Cameron fanboy opts for Remain and attempts to justify it.
Just man up and tell the truth ffs, that way you'll get more respect and less abuse
I trust you deploy your enviable charm when canvassing for LEAVE...
Of course he is. But that is the point: Britain staying in may well be in the interests of the US and many other countries besides. And that is a point for the voters here to bear in mind. And it is useful to hear the perspectives of others on what they think may be in our best interests.
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
Indeed so.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion call from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
The USA is a strange beast when it comes to European politics. I wrote a piece on it for my blog back in February. The conclusion that I reached after a lot of research is that the American people are anglophile, almost to a fault, but the US political elite are anything but and in general have a very anti British approach to international policy, and seek purely to use Britain as a tool for their own gain.
The so-called "special relationship" has always struck me as a sort of British delusion to cover up the fact that from the start of the 20th century, if not before, the US was determined to supplant Britain as the premier power in the world. Even during WW2, the US looked to its own interests and did whatever it could to help dismantle Britain's Empire. It made Britain pay for the help it got. There was very little altruism involved. And that has been the case ever since. At times our interests have coincided. But that is no different to any other country. Instead of all this sentimental nonsense about special relationships, whether with the US or the EU or China or The Serene Republic of Ruritania, we should simply remember and act on Palmerston's dictum.
'I think De Gaulle was probably right about the reasons he vetoed our application back in the day. CDG always put France first.'
But he wouldn't have bothered to use the veto today. With the UK just 1 of 28 EU states and no national vetoes and QMV, the UK can't upset the direction of the EU as De Gaulle feared.
Indeed, I suspect the General would be delighted to see that the CAP is alive and well and that the UK establishment has become entirely subservient to the EU, licking its rear end at every opportunity like some pathetic cur. It's a long way from 'la perfide Albion'.
The tougher ones are expected to be "upstate" rather than New York City itself. For each CD Trump is under 50% in, allocate 1 to the second place finisher.
New York, New York, New York is basically Manhattan !
(State, City, County)
I've tried to assign the most important county in column B for each congressional district.
Comments
Anyway, the Italians want a similar arrangement to that in place for the Greek border. All that's happened is that the problem has been displaced and they are now bearing the brunt of, so far, largely sub-Saharan African migration.
Worth a listen.
It just depends on which way you travel
Cartridge games were better.
Mr. Abroad, I recall the massive blocky pixellated graphics, of one karate game in particular. And yet, from there (and earlier, of course) we now have games like The Witcher 3.
I get the dense bit, still looking for the information
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of the latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection :
Should The United Kingdom Remain A Member Of The European Union Or Leave The European Union?
Remain 56% (+1) .. Leave 44% (-1)
Turnout Projection 62.5% (+0.5)
Changes from 15th April.
......................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
Mr. P, you've failed to address the question twice. If there's no tariff from Iceland to Turkey or anywhere in between, why do you think the UK would be singled out for one to the detriment of our own trade and also the trade of the EU?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36079009
Houston should call Houston they're in trouble.
Huzzah for concord!
https://t.co/3AxgR48xUe
But, ultimately, the US President is concerned as to what is best for the US.
And we need to think about what is best for Britain. The two are not the same.
My issues with Zac are entirely personal. He cheated on his wife. Alice is just as culpable, and my sympathy because of Amschel doesn't stretch that far.
I think he will be an indifferent mayor, at best, but not positively harmful (assuming that Cameron has the guts to deliver on Heathrow). Sadiq will be divisive and damaging to our great city.
But it's a very reluctant vote. If I didn't believe in the importance of voting as a matter of principle I might well abstain.
(That said, I don't know any of the minority candidates, so I'm open to suggestions. Very happy to put Zac second or third preference...)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/18/the-treasurys-dodgy-dossier-on-brexit-is-beneath-contempt/
I've also posted the Sun for you, bigger readership and better analysis than the FT.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7086607/George-Osborne-admits-to-migrant-surge-if-we-stay-in-EU.html
Hope that helps
He intends to win this referendum, whatever the cost. He is almost certainly an ideological Europhile, not the soft sceptic he pretended to be to get elected in 2005.
Clearly it's in the interest of REMAIN to trumpet Obama's support just as it's in the interest of LEAVE to highlight clarion calls from Putin ....
Oooppps ....
In addition to the concerns you have expressed about Khan I would add two: he's on record as being in favour of an Islamic blasphemy law - an absolute abomination as far as I'm concerned. No set of ideas should be protected like that. Also, back in 2004 he publicly dismissed the concerns raised before a Parliamentary select committee about Al-Qaradawi, the preacher invited in by Livingstone. Many many people objected to him because of what he had said about suicide bombing, beating women, stoning, killing Jews and gays and all the dismal rest of it and Khan's response was the usual evasive "oh he must have been misquoted/taken out of context etc". Far from being the candidate who will take the fight to the extremists it seems to me he will do no such thing - certainly based on his past record - and is more likely to give them, through inaction, more space to flourish. It also raises real questions about his judgment. At this time above all we need a Mayor who clearly understands the dividing line between those who are on the side of evil and those who are not and whose actions are in line with their words. Khan's words recently have sounded good (particularly on anti-Semitism) so I am happy to praise him on that but I still have doubts whether he will really follow through and will really confront his own followers and co-religionists on the perils and evils of extremism.
One very small point: Cameron will not be around for much longer. Even if he stayed until 2019, say, that will not give him very much time to change matters within Europe and I am intrigued that you think of him as a sort of post-Merkel European leader.
............................................................. Putin has a rather interesting background.
The more I see posts like that one below the more I wonder how Cameron can put his party back together again.
Remain have been favourites to win and still are, so I would have thought a bit of "letting them get it out of their system " would have been the approach of a relaxed winner. But the cons on both sides are letting it descend in to pointless rancour and the leadership team is egging it on.
I can no more see the Tories being one big happy family post EUref than the Scots post Indyref.
Show them a clip of Cameron, and they'll likely assume he's the Queen's butler.
I suspect American national interest Is to see a Britain in the EU holding the open trade line and fending off the protectionists - and in the short term don't want to see one of their reliable military allies severely distracted by BREXIT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
If the government tried to scrap that, MumNet pitchfork brigade would riot within seconds.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/23/the-impact-of-the-euref-onbetting-on-the-next-con-leader/
Possibly even more depressing than SINDYREF - whodathunkit? At least it's only 9 weeks....
Just man up and tell the truth ffs, that way you'll get more respect and less abuse
As to your point about immigration, speaking to a lot of leavers, it seems that it is arguably only here in the rarified atmosphere of PB that people are prepared to put up with EEA/EFTA and the continued four freedoms, in particular of people. Most people I speak to (= anecdote obvs), really do care about immigration and control of our borders.
Any scenario that ignores that in the event of a Leave vote will not end well.
'I think De Gaulle was probably right about the reasons he vetoed our application back in the day. CDG always put France first.'
But he wouldn't have bothered to use the veto today. With the UK just 1 of 28 EU states and no national vetoes and QMV, the UK can't upset the direction of the EU as De Gaulle feared.
Indeed, I suspect the General would be delighted to see that the CAP is alive and well and that the UK establishment has become entirely subservient to the EU, licking its rear end at every opportunity like some pathetic cur. It's a long way from 'la perfide Albion'.
I've created a quick crib sheet for New York
Essentially it is Trump vs 50% in ALL congressional districts.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12XTJWLWV46JDsxMso6ID_BlV0_6irPEyyY9kzxIm9iY/edit#gid=0
The tougher ones are expected to be "upstate" rather than New York City itself. For each CD Trump is under 50% in, allocate 1 to the second place finisher.
New York, New York, New York is basically Manhattan !
(State, City, County)
I've tried to assign the most important county in column B for each congressional district.