I just caught some clips of Michelle Obama's speech. She should seriously contemplate public office, I think she's possibly even a better speaker than her husband.
Being a good speaker does not in itself make you perfect for public office. In fact on its own it is incredibly dangerous.
No but it surely helps!
It does, although personally I like my politicians to have had to put a bit of grinding work in as well. Being a good public speaker with very good political connections means you don't have to work as hard as you get parachuted into great jobs without needing to prove anything in terms of the non public speaking parts of the role.
I just caught some clips of Michelle Obama's speech. She should seriously contemplate public office, I think she's possibly even a better speaker than her husband.
Being a good speaker does not in itself make you perfect for public office. In fact on its own it is incredibly dangerous.
No but it surely helps!
It does, although personally I like my politicians to have had to put a bit of grinding work in as well. Being a good public speaker with very good political connections means you don't have to work as hard as you get parachuted into great jobs without needing to prove anything in terms of the non public speaking parts of the role.
"I hope not, the last thing any country needs is Dynasty politics."
The Kennedys, Bush senior, Bush junior, Clinton Mr, Clinton Mrs. I'd say that compares well with North Korea.
There are about 300 million Americans. What are the odds against that happening by chance?
The U.S. President is the Head of State so equivalent to a monarch thus it is not that surprising. Spouses have both obtained or run for President in Argentina and France too. PMs can also occasionally be from dynasties, see Trudeau Senior and Junior
It really shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone – plumber’s son becomes plumber etc…
It's amusing because for all we know aristocracy is not 'right' that sort of thing does seem to show that as humans we gravitate to that type of model to some degree. Im looking forward to George p bush running for president one day.
Looking at the extreme Bernie supporters, maybe they should just make more of an effort to get a viable third party going. Yes it's probable near impossible, but they seem so different from the rest. And hey, Bernie made it to senator as an Indy after all.
One wonders how anyone ever conducts negotiations in this day and age when the press apparently know exactly what the negotiating position is in advance...
Personally 300 times the scope at 10 times the speed of the industrial revolution is a serious understatement.
He doesn't sound disappointed with the referendum result...
last month it helped the Leave campaign to win a famous victory
Frankly I think a lot of people in the Tory party probably feel liberated by the result. It's not necessarily that they think the right decision was made for the country, but just that they finally see the prospect of the end of the party's obsession with Europe.
Remember it was Hague who took EUscepticism into the mainstream by opposing the Euro in 2001. Hague was the first party leader since the 70s to advocate detaching ourselves from the EU on a fundamental level by never joining the EMU. Since then Conservative leaders have followed the same steps. The EU has been seen as a shit organisation to Tory voters, but many were willing to compromise for economic gain. Now that we're out the party is united as it hasn't been on the EU for a long time.
Indeed, but he was officially Remain. So either he's reached Acceptance quicker than most, or he was about as Remain as Corbyn was...
I am very surprised the average woman in the uk is only 5 5 .
Still, being 5 7, I say I'm average height for a person, as I'm not sexist so don't divide the genders.
If one isn’t very tall, one of the reasons for going to Thailand is that most people are about ones own height! Although I once wandered around Newmarket town and I was struck by the number of very short men about.
Bugger Hillary, bugger Corbyn; this is the story of the day. Both here and in the Times warnings of a great May betrayal of 17,400,000 voters is in the offing: ttps://twitter.com/Iainmckie_UKIP/status/757657956989210625
That was one of the stories of yesterday, and reports of such by europhiles like Myers should be treated with a healthy scepticism.
You'll be wholly f*cked until you can run a defence of self-defence whenever you kill a leftie... there aren't that many of us these days, one in five maybe...
It was certainly very strange earlier in the evening when his fans were booing every mention of Hillary's name - at one point it was deafening, with Bernites out heckling the Hillites in a wall of noise. It was like a football crowd.
It's like the SIndyRef. No=Hillary; Yes=Bernie. His supporters are much more fired up and are working from the heart; hers know with their head that it's the better choice but aren't particularly enthused.
Surely this is just triangulation -- Bernie's supporters will have to hold their noses and vote for Hillary just as Cruz's and Jeb's will do for Trump. Whether it's true remains to be seen but given the Clintons practically invented triangulation politics, it is no great surprise we see Hillary paying lip service to the left (Bernie and Elizabeth Warren) while tacking right.
Maybe so but triangulation only works if you can hold on to your base while winning the centre. The candidate / party works on the assumption that their own brand is strong enough and the core voters' fear of the alternative is also sufficiently strong to be able to ignore them. For someone like Bill Clinton or Tony Blair in their respective pomps, those assumptions might be reasonable; for a candidate as weak as Hillary, it's courageous in the yes Minister sense - but courage based on arrogant entitlement.
How would I vote if an American? I have never missed an election in my life and take it as a duty to vote. As things stand, I don't think I could bring myself to support either mainstream candidate and would need to look down the list in the hope of someone more decent. If I thought that Trump were competent and might have Congress on his side, I'd worry more but he isn't and he won't.
Personally 300 times the scope at 10 times the speed of the industrial revolution is a serious understatement.
He doesn't sound disappointed with the referendum result...
last month it helped the Leave campaign to win a famous victory
Frankly I think a lot of people in the Tory party probably feel liberated by the result. It's not necessarily that they think the right decision was made for the country, but just that they finally see the prospect of the end of the party's obsession with Europe.
Remember it was Hague who took EUscepticism into the mainstream by opposing the Euro in 2001. Hague was the first party leader since the 70s to advocate detaching ourselves from the EU on a fundamental level by never joining the EMU. Since then Conservative leaders have followed the same steps. The EU has been seen as a shit organisation to Tory voters, but many were willing to compromise for economic gain. Now that we're out the party is united as it hasn't been on the EU for a long time.
Indeed, but he was officially Remain. So either he's reached Acceptance quicker than most, or he was about as Remain as Corbyn was...
Personally 300 times the scope at 10 times the speed of the industrial revolution is a serious understatement.
He doesn't sound disappointed with the referendum result...
last month it helped the Leave campaign to win a famous victory
Frankly I think a lot of people in the Tory party probably feel liberated by the result. It's not necessarily that they think the right decision was made for the country, but just that they finally see the prospect of the end of the party's obsession with Europe.
Remember it was Hague who took EUscepticism into the mainstream by opposing the Euro in 2001. Hague was the first party leader since the 70s to advocate detaching ourselves from the EU on a fundamental level by never joining the EMU. Since then Conservative leaders have followed the same steps. The EU has been seen as a shit organisation to Tory voters, but many were willing to compromise for economic gain. Now that we're out the party is united as it hasn't been on the EU for a long time.
Indeed, but he was officially Remain. So either he's reached Acceptance quicker than most, or he was about as Remain as Corbyn was...
Yes, I read that. Certainly your interpretation is one possible, but it's not one that most people would draw.
Unless you have some other knowledge?
Well, yes, I know where Hague stands on the EU. If you do not, google is your friend. A volte face would be utterly extraordinary, and front page news. And "famous victory" would be odd wording if it were meant to be taken straight, and not as an allusion to that poem.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Technically correct, but politically naive perhaps It would be an interesting view to relate to voters on the doorstep when they are thinking of ticking the box for Mr Woolfe A FoM + joke handbrake deal will be a gift for the purples that will keep on giving, they will allege not just betrayed but deceit and double dealing, and the voters will believe them.
Brexit referendum and Trump rather reminds me of the Rhodesian Election of 1962 (which saw the fairly liberal establishment UFP party defeated by Smiths Rhodesian Front (although Winston Field was leader at the time). Even the Rhodesia front did not expect to win.
The result was a shock. The establishment always wins in Rhodesia, it was confidently said - which it did, until it didn't.
Except the U.S. Presidency is rather more significant than Rhodesia was. A protectionist, nationalist Trump presidency would impact us all and give such forces yet another boost post Brexit
Looking at the UK currently, I am struggling to see how the Establishment lost. It seems to be pretty much in as much control as it was before 23rd June.
Simon Kuper had an article in Saturday's FT proposing that Brexit will just be a huge muddle. Ministers won't want to get closely involved in the tricky decisions in case they make a mistake so they will leave it to civil servants to sort out. When Leave came up with "Taking Back Control" what it really means is, let Sir Humphrey deal with it.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Technically correct, but politically naive perhaps It would be an interesting view to relate to voters on the doorstep when they are thinking of ticking the box for Mr Woolfe
Oh, I am sure such a deal would be manna from heaven for UKIP as a continuing force, and I far from sure may wants that fight and so won't go for too bad a deal as far as those people are concerned. But no matter that some will call it betrayal, it will still be factually wrong to call it so.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
Brexit referendum and Trump rather reminds me of the Rhodesian Election of 1962 (which saw the fairly liberal establishment UFP party defeated by Smiths Rhodesian Front (although Winston Field was leader at the time). Even the Rhodesia front did not expect to win.
The result was a shock. The establishment always wins in Rhodesia, it was confidently said - which it did, until it didn't.
Except the U.S. Presidency is rather more significant than Rhodesia was. A protectionist, nationalist Trump presidency would impact us all and give such forces yet another boost post Brexit
Looking at the UK currently, I am struggling to see how the Establishment lost. It seems to be pretty much in as much control as it was before 23rd June.
Simon Kuper had an article in Saturday's FT proposing that Brexit will just be a huge muddle. Ministers won't want to get closely involved in the tricky decisions in case they make a mistake so they will leave it to civil servants to sort out. When Leave came up with "Taking Back Control" what it really means is, let Sir Humphrey deal with it.
That would be courageous, Sir Humphrey is both a raging federalist europhile, and unelected. It won't enable them to get off the hook, it will enable them to lose the next election.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Brexit is a paradox. A decision has been made but it resolves nothing. Brexit means Brexit. But Brexit has no definition.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Technically correct, but politically naive perhaps It would be an interesting view to relate to voters on the doorstep when they are thinking of ticking the box for Mr Woolfe A FoM + joke handbrake deal will be a gift for the purples that will keep on giving, they will allege not just betrayed but deceit and double dealing, and the voters will believe them.
UKIP's Suzanne Evans is making an announcement at 1030 today. Something to keep us entertained I hope.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
That depends on what the handbrake actually means, who it enables to be excluded and on what basis. I can't believe it would be a hard cap, because that might mean we would get to August and announce we were not taking anyone for the rest of the year, which isn't a practical proposition. How would this proposed handbrake actually work in practise and still enable to necessary immigration to proceed at the appropriate time.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
From my point of view, and I've been an exiteer for at least 20 years, I'd be happy with the following:
1 Supremacy of UK laws 2 No laws imposed from the EU 3 The right to admit and deport all non nationals - note the right does not determine activity. 4 No more contributions to the EU monster
It was certainly very strange earlier in the evening when his fans were booing every mention of Hillary's name - at one point it was deafening, with Bernites out heckling the Hillites in a wall of noise. It was like a football crowd.
It's like the SIndyRef. No=Hillary; Yes=Bernie. His supporters are much more fired up and are working from the heart; hers know with their head that it's the better choice but aren't particularly enthused.
Surely this is just triangulation -- Bernie's supporters will have to hold their noses and vote for Hillary just as Cruz's and Jeb's will do for Trump. Whether it's true remains to be seen but given the Clintons practically invented triangulation politics, it is no great surprise we see Hillary paying lip service to the left (Bernie and Elizabeth Warren) while tacking right.
Maybe so but triangulation only works if you can hold on to your base while winning the centre. The candidate / party works on the assumption that their own brand is strong enough and the core voters' fear of the alternative is also sufficiently strong to be able to ignore them. For someone like Bill Clinton or Tony Blair in their respective pomps, those assumptions might be reasonable; for a candidate as weak as Hillary, it's courageous in the yes Minister sense - but courage based on arrogant entitlement.
How would I vote if an American? I have never missed an election in my life and take it as a duty to vote. As things stand, I don't think I could bring myself to support either mainstream candidate and would need to look down the list in the hope of someone more decent. If I thought that Trump were competent and might have Congress on his side, I'd worry more but he isn't and he won't.
I think Trump would struggle to get much of his more radical ideas past Congress.
But I can't decide if he's bombast and bluster but actually quite liberal (a US Boris) or in earnest about quite a lot of it (Farage+++)
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I am very surprised the average woman in the uk is only 5 5 .
Still, being 5 7, I say I'm average height for a person, as I'm not sexist so don't divide the genders.
The one thing I wouldn't change is my height, 6'1 is a good height for seeing the world whilst not being 'too tall'.
I was once stopped and searched by the police. The cheeky gits put my height down as 5'9'' when I'm over 6'.
Ha!
I'm 5' 7" and almost all my other halves were well over 6'. I just get really self-conscious when I'm taller than my chap - and I used to love my high heels too. Height's a really weird thing - I felt really stumpy in the company of Danes.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
It's not a fact; it's an opinion. But debating that point with those who can't distinguish between the two is usually fruitless so I'll go back to work.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Technically correct, but politically naive perhaps It would be an interesting view to relate to voters on the doorstep when they are thinking of ticking the box for Mr Woolfe A FoM + joke handbrake deal will be a gift for the purples that will keep on giving, they will allege not just betrayed but deceit and double dealing, and the voters will believe them.
UKIP's Suzanne Evans is making an announcement at 1030 today. Something to keep us entertained I hope.
I assume she has found some way to stand for the leadership despite being suspended until mid-September ? Which to choose on the identity politics front to cover their weakest flank ... the middle class female, or the working class mixed race male!
BBC were reporting on East TV last night that Norfolk County Council were expressing concerning over the loss o EU grants and other payments, which Whitehall had yet to assure them would be replaced from central government.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
This is just Project Fear by the Daily Telegraph to wind up kippers and headbangers.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
From my point of view, and I've been an exiteer for at least 20 years, I'd be happy with the following:
1 Supremacy of UK laws 2 No laws imposed from the EU 3 The right to admit and deport all non nationals - note the right does not determine activity. 4 No more contributions to the EU monster
You mean you don't want a poll tax on everyone who voted Remain? Do try harder, otherwise you'll deserve whatever fudge you get landed with.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36892785 Reuters quoted a police source as saying between four and six people were being held by two armed men at the church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray.
It was certainly very strange earlier in the evening when his fans were booing every mention of Hillary's name - at one point it was deafening, with Bernites out heckling the Hillites in a wall of noise. It was like a football crowd.
It's like the SIndyRef. No=Hillary; Yes=Bernie. His supporters are much more fired up and are working from the heart; hers know with their head that it's the better choice but aren't particularly enthused.
Surely this is just triangulation -- Bernie's supporters will have to hold their noses and vote for Hillary just as Cruz's and Jeb's will do for Trump. Whether it's true remains to be seen but given the Clintons practically invented triangulation politics, it is no great surprise we see Hillary paying lip service to the left (Bernie and Elizabeth Warren) while tacking right.
Maybe so but triangulation only works if you can hold on to your base while winning the centre. The candidate / party works on the assumption that their own brand is strong enough and the core voters' fear of the alternative is also sufficiently strong to be able to ignore them. For someone like Bill Clinton or Tony Blair in their respective pomps, those assumptions might be reasonable; for a candidate as weak as Hillary, it's courageous in the yes Minister sense - but courage based on arrogant entitlement.
How would I vote if an American? I have never missed an election in my life and take it as a duty to vote. As things stand, I don't think I could bring myself to support either mainstream candidate and would need to look down the list in the hope of someone more decent. If I thought that Trump were competent and might have Congress on his side, I'd worry more but he isn't and he won't.
I think Trump would struggle to get much of his more radical ideas past Congress.
But I can't decide if he's bombast and bluster but actually quite liberal (a US Boris) or in earnest about quite a lot of it (Farage+++)
Before all his bombast and sabre-rattling - I was always under the impression he was a NY liberal sort. My views haven't changed much - he's very Boris in a Brexit/salesman way.
@MikeK - the UK is very big and might (still) end up being the biggest European economy (and possibly population too) in 20-30 years time so I still believe we'll continue to have lots of influence even outside the EU.
I think we'll get:
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If that doesn't honk your horn, don't worry. Important part is that we're now tacking away from the EU and starting to chart our own destiny.
If we want a harder Brexit in 10-15 years time that option will be there (and much more economically safe) once we've built up other trade networks worldwide
Apparently at 5'9, I am basically average for a man, but I was always shorter than my peers.
As the saying goes, the small ones fight the dirtiest.
Yes, successive generations are getting taller so someone who is of average height for the population at large will be shorter than average for his or her age-group.
Personally 300 times the scope at 10 times the speed of the industrial revolution is a serious understatement.
He doesn't sound disappointed with the referendum result...
last month it helped the Leave campaign to win a famous victory
Frankly I think a lot of people in the Tory party probably feel liberated by the result. It's not necessarily that they think the right decision was made for the country, but just that they finally see the prospect of the end of the party's obsession with Europe.
Remember it was Hague who took EUscepticism into the mainstream by opposing the Euro in 2001. Hague was the first party leader since the 70s to advocate detaching ourselves from the EU on a fundamental level by never joining the EMU. Since then Conservative leaders have followed the same steps. The EU has been seen as a shit organisation to Tory voters, but many were willing to compromise for economic gain. Now that we're out the party is united as it hasn't been on the EU for a long time.
Indeed, but he was officially Remain. So either he's reached Acceptance quicker than most, or he was about as Remain as Corbyn was...
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
It's not a fact; it's an opinion. But debating that point with those who can't distinguish between the two is usually fruitless so I'll go back to work.
This is politics. Truth is perception, it doesn't matter what the facts are, it what the voters think and feel, sometimes the two are related but as we know this if often not the case. If a narrative of betrayal is allowed to grow, then the Tories are toast.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
Good morning all.
Mike, the trouble with your view is that you then become the UK's Juncker. There is no solution to Brexit that will please everyone.
Further, this is a process, not an event. If, in the future, people feel that the initial Brexit solution is unsatisfactory, they will have the opportunity to address that via the ballot box.
The UK has been integrating into the EU (albeit in fits and starts) for 43 years. It's bound to be a bugger's muddle reversing that process.
Personally 300 times the scope at 10 times the speed of the industrial revolution is a serious understatement.
He doesn't sound disappointed with the referendum result...
last month it helped the Leave campaign to win a famous victory
Frankly I think a lot of people in the Tory party probably feel liberated by the result. It's not necessarily that they think the right decision was made for the country, but just that they finally see the prospect of the end of the party's obsession with Europe.
Remember it was Hague who took EUscepticism into the mainstream by opposing the Euro in 2001. Hague was the first party leader since the 70s to advocate detaching ourselves from the EU on a fundamental level by never joining the EMU. Since then Conservative leaders have followed the same steps. The EU has been seen as a shit organisation to Tory voters, but many were willing to compromise for economic gain. Now that we're out the party is united as it hasn't been on the EU for a long time.
Indeed, but he was officially Remain. So either he's reached Acceptance quicker than most, or he was about as Remain as Corbyn was...
@MikeK - the UK is very big and might (still) end up being the biggest European economy (and possibly population too) in 20-30 years time so I still believe we'll continue to have lots of influence even outside the EU.
I think we'll get:
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If that doesn't honk your horn, don't worry. Important part is that we're now tacking away from the EU and starting to chart our own destiny.
If we want a harder Brexit in 10-15 years time that option will be there (and much more economically safe) once we've built up other trade networks worldwide
I think that's pretty much where we are heading. Mass immigration is a problem we will have to solve by reforming the benefits system and making it tougher for low-wage and low-skilled migrants to be successful in the UK.
@MikeK - the UK is very big and might (still) end up being the biggest European economy (and possibly population too) in 20-30 years time so I still believe we'll continue to have lots of influence even outside the EU.
I think we'll get:
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If that doesn't honk your horn, don't worry. Important part is that we're now tacking away from the EU and starting to chart our own destiny.
If we want a harder Brexit in 10-15 years time that option will be there (and much more economically safe) once we've built up other trade networks worldwide
I think that's pretty much where we are heading. Mass immigration is a problem we will have to solve by reforming the benefits system and making it tougher for low-wage and low-skilled migrants to be successful in the UK.
I am 100% clear here: the levels of net immigration absolutely must come down.
A million extra people in the UK every three years simply isn't sustainable and there is an overwhelming majority of the public who want a significant reduction.
Politicians must find a way of delivering this and I am absolutely not with the types of Tories who try and explain it away.
@MikeK - the UK is very big and might (still) end up being the biggest European economy (and possibly population too) in 20-30 years time so I still believe we'll continue to have lots of influence even outside the EU.
I think we'll get:
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If that doesn't honk your horn, don't worry. Important part is that we're now tacking away from the EU and starting to chart our own destiny.
If we want a harder Brexit in 10-15 years time that option will be there (and much more economically safe) once we've built up other trade networks worldwide
I think that's pretty much where we are heading. Mass immigration is a problem we will have to solve by reforming the benefits system and making it tougher for low-wage and low-skilled migrants to be successful in the UK.
I agree. But it won't happen because Labour, the SNP and the LDs will vote against all those sort of measures and grandstand about racist and xenophobia as the BBC salivates over all the "progressive" knocking news copy it gets out of it.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Brexit is a paradox. A decision has been made but it resolves nothing. Brexit means Brexit. But Brexit has no definition.
It means Leaving the EU. No longer being a member of the political Project.
Apparently at 5'9, I am basically average for a man, but I was always shorter than my peers.
As the saying goes, the small ones fight the dirtiest.
Yes, successive generations are getting taller so someone who is of average height for the population at large will be shorter than average for his or her age-group.
Doesn't that depend on how old you are? A 70 year old who is average height for the population at large would be taller than his or her age group wouldn't they?
Some of you continue to place far too much emphasis on the benefits system as a means of controlling immigration. The majority of current immigration is not supported by benefits.
Two men with knives holding priest, two nuns & associated worshippers hostage.
Two men ? Going to be hard to claim they are lonewolves then....
Err, I think you'll find that they are both loners who just happened upon the same church at the same time with weapons.
Ah yes, I can see it now, one will be called Marcel and the other François, they will have no connections will Islam, never heard of ISIS, and have absolutely no unexplained large financial transaction within the last few months. Quite possibly they have links with far-right groups. They will have been heard shouting "Vive La France" near the scene.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
It's semantics to point out the fact that the vote to Brexit did not give us options on what type of Brexit we would like, and therefore left it up to the government? It's a view I suppose.
You do not know why many people voted to Leave, you cannot know what they want. I have no doubt your reasons for leaving were closer to the majority than my reasons for voting to leave, but either way, we didn't get the option to explain what Brexit aftermath we wanted.
I am consistently baffled at the idea that only one form of Brexit is legitimate, that any other form is a betrayal, when the vote did not specify any particular form. I pride myself on being able to understand the viewpoints of opposed political views, but insisting Brexit means one thing and only one thing, in the absence of and in fact contrary to the evidence that the vote to Brexit did not mean any such thing, is a fanatical view.
Have a good day all. Of course, the weather forecast said it could be cloudy with sunny spells, but as I want it to be totally sunny, the weather has betrayed me by having clouds.
I am very surprised the average woman in the uk is only 5 5 .
Still, being 5 7, I say I'm average height for a person, as I'm not sexist so don't divide the genders.
If one isn’t very tall, one of the reasons for going to Thailand is that most people are about ones own height!
Glasgow's good for that also, and anyone taller than Ronny Corbett gets called 'big man'. Though you occasionally get the feeling that there's a speculative 'can I take him' vibe about it.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
That's not what the people voted for. Temporary controls on immigration won't wash.
@MikeK - the UK is very big and might (still) end up being the biggest European economy (and possibly population too) in 20-30 years time so I still believe we'll continue to have lots of influence even outside the EU.
I think we'll get:
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If that doesn't honk your horn, don't worry. Important part is that we're now tacking away from the EU and starting to chart our own destiny.
If we want a harder Brexit in 10-15 years time that option will be there (and much more economically safe) once we've built up other trade networks worldwide
I think that's pretty much where we are heading. Mass immigration is a problem we will have to solve by reforming the benefits system and making it tougher for low-wage and low-skilled migrants to be successful in the UK.
I am 100% clear here: the levels of net immigration absolutely must come down.
A million extra people in the UK every three years simply isn't sustainable and there is an overwhelming majority of the public who want a significant reduction.
Politicians must find a way of delivering this and I am absolutely not with the types of Tories who try and explain it away.
As I have said on numerous occasions, I think immigration at the levels we currently have is unsustainable and must come down to around 125-175k per year IMO, around half of what we currently have. This can be achieved by pricing out low paid immigrants from the UK by not offering housing benefits, tax credits or any kind of benefits for dependants (unemployment benefits for spouses or child benefits/daycare for children). If someone wants to come and make a life for themselves here then they must do it independently and not require the state to intervene. If they are unable to cut it then we should ask for them to return to their home nation, not give them unlimited assistance in the form of housing benefits and unemployment benefits after 90 days.
Brexit is a paradox. A decision has been made but it resolves nothing. Brexit means Brexit. But Brexit has no definition.
Apart from exiting the European Union, you mean?
Apart from that yes. What angers fanatics is that the fight for how to do that is still on. And the hardcore fanatics could win that fight, as some Remainers are staying out of it and other options have their own problems too. But instead the fanatics rail at the idea anyone might suggest a contrary view, and how dare they push for it.
You have to win the peace as much as win the war. I thought Leave would win years ago back when I was a Remainer, and I was proved right as people, including me, switched to Leave in the meantime. And I think HardBrexiteers could win the peace, the aftermath. But no, whining about betrayal is a more useful stance to take.
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If Cameron had managed to get a deal like that I think he would have won with a landslide. I would be very happy if we manage to get something like that. I've never personally been too bothered by the trade and immigration issues, it has always been the encroachment into other areas like social, political, and foreign policy that I disliked.
If May, Davis, Johnson, and Fox can get us a deal like that they will deserve a general election victory.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
The reason a 'fudge' is necessary is because the solution has to be politically sustainable.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
Some of you continue to place far too much emphasis on the benefits system as a means of controlling immigration. The majority of current immigration is not supported by benefits.
EU migrants account for around 7% of the workforce and claim around 15% of in-working benefits and a similar proportion of housing benefit iirc. Without that assistance how many do you think would still come?
Some of you continue to place far too much emphasis on the benefits system as a means of controlling immigration. The majority of current immigration is not supported by benefits.
So Child Benefit, Working Tax Credits, Child Tax Credits, Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit don't count then. Glad we have got that sorted.
Why do people think unemployement benefits are the whole sum of benefits?
@MikeK - the UK is very big and might (still) end up being the biggest European economy (and possibly population too) in 20-30 years time so I still believe we'll continue to have lots of influence even outside the EU.
I think we'll get:
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If that doesn't honk your horn, don't worry. Important part is that we're now tacking away from the EU and starting to chart our own destiny.
If we want a harder Brexit in 10-15 years time that option will be there (and much more economically safe) once we've built up other trade networks worldwide
I think that's pretty much where we are heading. Mass immigration is a problem we will have to solve by reforming the benefits system and making it tougher for low-wage and low-skilled migrants to be successful in the UK.
I am 100% clear here: the levels of net immigration absolutely must come down.
A million extra people in the UK every three years simply isn't sustainable and there is an overwhelming majority of the public who want a significant reduction.
Politicians must find a way of delivering this and I am absolutely not with the types of Tories who try and explain it away.
As I have said on numerous occasions, I think immigration at the levels we currently have is unsustainable and must come down to around 125-175k per year IMO, around half of what we currently have. This can be achieved by pricing out low paid immigrants from the UK by not offering housing benefits, tax credits or any kind of benefits for dependants (unemployment benefits for spouses or child benefits/daycare for children). If someone wants to come and make a life for themselves here then they must do it independently and not require the state to intervene. If they are unable to cut it then we should ask for them to return to their home nation, not give them unlimited assistance in the form of housing benefits and unemployment benefits after 90 days.
Problem is we do all those things for several hundred thousand illegal immigrants that failed their appeal but married someone and claimed Article 8. Its going to be tough to be seen to be giving all those perks to people who essentially thumbed their noses at the system and not to people who turn up with the intention of doing a job of work and paying their taxes.
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If Cameron had managed to get a deal like that I think he would have won with a landslide. I would be very happy if we manage to get something like that. I've never personally been too bothered by the trade and immigration issues, it has always been the encroachment into other areas like social, political, and foreign policy that I disliked.
If May, Davis, Johnson, and Fox can get us a deal like that they will deserve a general election victory.
If we get a deal like that, I imagine it would not have been possible to obtain such without actually having pulled the trigger on Brexit - in so many ways the EU just would not bend prior to that threat materialising. They may still not, but there's more chance now.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
That's not what the people voted for. Temporary controls on immigration won't wash.
I was going to say 10 years with a promise to renegotiate at the end of that might, together with restrictions on migrant benefits.
However the way things are going I think everyone will have immigration controls before long.
@MikeK - the UK is very big and might (still) end up being the biggest European economy (and possibly population too) in 20-30 years time so I still believe we'll continue to
I think we'll get:
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If that doesn't honk your horn, don't worry. Important part is that we're now tacking away from the EU and starting to chart our own destiny.
If we want a harder Brexit in 10-15 years time that option will be there (and much more economically safe) once we've built up other trade networks worldwide
I think that's pretty much where we are heading. Mass immigration is a problem we will have to solve by reforming the benefits system and making it tougher for low-wage and low-skilled migrants to be successful in the UK.
I am 100% clear here: the levels of net immigration absolutely must come down.
A million extra people in the UK every three years simply isn't sustainable and there is an overwhelming majority of the public who want a significant reduction.
Politicians must find a way of delivering this and I am absolutely not with the types of Tories who try and explain it away.
As I have said on numerous occasions, I think immigration at the levels we currently have is unsustainable and must come down to around 125-175k per year IMO, around half of what we currently have. This can be achieved by pricing out low paid immigrants from the UK by not offering housing benefits, tax credits or any kind of benefits for dependants (unemployment benefits for spouses or child benefits/daycare for children). If someone wants to come and make a life for themselves here then they must do it independently and not require the state to intervene. If they are unable to cut it then we should ask for them to return to their home nation, not give them unlimited assistance in the form of housing benefits and unemployment benefits after 90 days.
Yes, I think that'd be politically sustainable and economically sensible, particularly if voters could influence migration caps and policy through GEs in the HoC and politicians responded.
What tickled me is (and I forget where) the article I read where businesses were lamenting the potential loss of cheap labour and complaining that they'd have to invest in training their workforce instead.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
That's not what the people voted for. Temporary controls on immigration won't wash.
A 7 year emergency brake would do it, it would give us time to fix our benefits system and time for Eastern European economies to catch up to the UK, especially if we aren't sucking in so much of their working age population. I agree that it would be a hard sell, but if the government could agree an initial 7 year emergency brake and then the ability to reapply it unilaterally if EU migration goes above a certain level for two years running then it would be enough.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Brexit is a paradox. A decision has been made but it resolves nothing. Brexit means Brexit. But Brexit has no definition.
It means Leaving the EU. No longer being a member of the political Project.
The EEA would meet that definition, but as others here point out, voluntarily signing up to freedom of movement and other things that we can't subsequently control as part of a multilateral arrangement would be unacceptable to large parts of the population.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
The reason a 'fudge' is necessary is because the solution has to be politically sustainable.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
I'm not sure about losing Scotland. The problems with the Sottish economy will not go away if they leave the UK and try to join the EU. If there was another referendum (a big if) then there would be huge arguments from both the UK and EU spelling out the implications. May be seen as another project fear but we'd have to see, especially if Spain came down hard on not allowing Scotland to breeze into the EU
If we get a deal like that, I imagine it would not have been possible to obtain such without actually having pulled the trigger on Brexit - in so many ways the EU just would not bend prior to that threat materialising. They may still not, but there's more chance now.
Yes the EU didn't believe Cameron, with good reason, but the good old British public pulled no punches.
Apparently at 5'9, I am basically average for a man, but I was always shorter than my peers.
As the saying goes, the small ones fight the dirtiest.
Yes, successive generations are getting taller so someone who is of average height for the population at large will be shorter than average for his or her age-group.
Doesn't that depend on how old you are? A 70 year old who is average height for the population at large would be taller than his or her age group wouldn't they?
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
That's not what the people voted for. Temporary controls on immigration won't wash.
A 7 year emergency brake would do it, it would give us time to fix our benefits system and time for Eastern European economies to catch up to the UK, especially if we aren't sucking in so much of their working age population. I agree that it would be a hard sell, but if the government could agree an initial 7 year emergency brake and then the ability to reapply it unilaterally if EU migration goes above a certain level for two years running then it would be enough.
As a Remainer I could live with that. I’s still be unhappy that the direction of travel of the EU wasn’t something we’d have any influence over, though. And the effect on universities and research is stll very concerning.
Comments
Still, being 5 7, I say I'm average height for a person, as I'm not sexist so don't divide the genders.
Both here and in the Times warnings of a great May betrayal of 17,400,000 voters is in the offing:
https://twitter.com/Iainmckie_UKIP/status/757657956989210625
Mr. K, we'll wait and see what May's proposal is. Could put her in a position to win a landslide majority. Or destroy her premiership.
Unless you have some other knowledge?
Although I once wandered around Newmarket town and I was struck by the number of very short men about.
This man was very good last night, obamaesque.
How would I vote if an American? I have never missed an election in my life and take it as a duty to vote. As things stand, I don't think I could bring myself to support either mainstream candidate and would need to look down the list in the hope of someone more decent. If I thought that Trump were competent and might have Congress on his side, I'd worry more but he isn't and he won't.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
1 Supremacy of UK laws
2 No laws imposed from the EU
3 The right to admit and deport all non nationals - note the right does not determine activity.
4 No more contributions to the EU monster
But I can't decide if he's bombast and bluster but actually quite liberal (a US Boris) or in earnest about quite a lot of it (Farage+++)
I'm 5' 7" and almost all my other halves were well over 6'. I just get really self-conscious when I'm taller than my chap - and I used to love my high heels too. Height's a really weird thing - I felt really stumpy in the company of Danes.
As the saying goes, the small ones fight the dirtiest.
Two men with knives holding priest, two nuns & associated worshippers hostage.
Wasn't Joan of Arc tried there?
- Brexit must look like a separation.
- Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
Reuters quoted a police source as saying between four and six people were being held by two armed men at the church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray.
I think we'll get:
- free trade in goods
- fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting)
- a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull
- a way of us continuing to input into single market rules
- trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back
- continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted
- quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If that doesn't honk your horn, don't worry. Important part is that we're now tacking away from the EU and starting to chart our own destiny.
If we want a harder Brexit in 10-15 years time that option will be there (and much more economically safe) once we've built up other trade networks worldwide
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/nice-cover-up-may-scupper-hollande-election-hopes-rtj9w7jlx
True for any 'growing' population
Mike, the trouble with your view is that you then become the UK's Juncker. There is no solution to Brexit that will please everyone.
Further, this is a process, not an event. If, in the future, people feel that the initial Brexit solution is unsatisfactory, they will have the opportunity to address that via the ballot box.
The UK has been integrating into the EU (albeit in fits and starts) for 43 years. It's bound to be a bugger's muddle reversing that process.
The way to measure a man is not by the length of his body, but the length of his [winning] tips.
A million extra people in the UK every three years simply isn't sustainable and there is an overwhelming majority of the public who want a significant reduction.
Politicians must find a way of delivering this and I am absolutely not with the types of Tories who try and explain it away.
Saying the attackers have been neutralised
You do not know why many people voted to Leave, you cannot know what they want. I have no doubt your reasons for leaving were closer to the majority than my reasons for voting to leave, but either way, we didn't get the option to explain what Brexit aftermath we wanted.
I am consistently baffled at the idea that only one form of Brexit is legitimate, that any other form is a betrayal, when the vote did not specify any particular form. I pride myself on being able to understand the viewpoints of opposed political views, but insisting Brexit means one thing and only one thing, in the absence of and in fact contrary to the evidence that the vote to Brexit did not mean any such thing, is a fanatical view.
Have a good day all. Of course, the weather forecast said it could be cloudy with sunny spells, but as I want it to be totally sunny, the weather has betrayed me by having clouds.
Though you occasionally get the feeling that there's a speculative 'can I take him' vibe about it.
You have to win the peace as much as win the war. I thought Leave would win years ago back when I was a Remainer, and I was proved right as people, including me, switched to Leave in the meantime. And I think HardBrexiteers could win the peace, the aftermath. But no, whining about betrayal is a more useful stance to take.
If May, Davis, Johnson, and Fox can get us a deal like that they will deserve a general election victory.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
Why do people think unemployement benefits are the whole sum of benefits?
However the way things are going I think everyone will have immigration controls before long.
Le Figaro now reporting that the priest who was taken hostage at the Normandy church "had his throat cut" https://t.co/Byp6ofbBsw
What tickled me is (and I forget where) the article I read where businesses were lamenting the potential loss of cheap labour and complaining that they'd have to invest in training their workforce instead.
The Blood of the Martyrs is the Life of the Church.
May he rest in peace and gain his eternal reward.