He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
He posted line after line about the Burka, not one word about the Burkini, how am I supposed to know the poll included a question from the Burkini from that? Pollsters may well ask more questions, if they do add the key points, links are supposed to provide context and methodology. The misrepresentation if anything was to omit to mention perhaps one of the key poll findings when posting, if posting polls ALL key findings should be included.
You are supposed to know it by reading the linked to article or the actual poll details before falsely claiming a negative. It is utterly dishonest and disreputable to falsely claim a negative if you never bothered to check your facts first.
How am I supposed to know it? I am not psychic. In numerous paragraphs on poll findings on the burka a poll on the burkini was not mentioned once. All it needed was one sentence on it and then the link for context. It is most certainly not dishonest and disreputable to take what is written on this site if key facts are omitted, when mentioning polls all key facts should be included
I am genuinely interested to see what happens. I just cannot see how the Tories square the circle. Saying we want it all is not going to be a sustainable position. Some very, very hard choices will have to be made.
Although the stuff today was almost entirely pure waffle, I think we are beginning to see the outlines of where the square is going to have rounded edges. The strategy seems to be a red line on freedom of movement, and, given that constraint, negotiate as much access to the Single Market as can be achieved. I think they are resigned to the reality that that means an end to financial passporting and that therefore there will be at least short-term damage to the City. I further think they will try all-out to get tariff- and hassle-free trade in manufactured goods (especially for the car industry, which has most to lose), and that should be attainable as it is very much in both sides' interest and the acquis communitaire which we're already signed up to makes it much easier than negotiating a free-trade agreement from scratch. The main areas of uncertainty on the economic side still relate to services.
Of course this is all subject to the politics of the other 27 EU countries, so no guarantees.
There's a useful chart here listing which sectors are most likely to get unrestricted access under an FTA, the tariffs or barriers that would apply if free access is not attained and the surplus or deficit the UK has in each area.
The baseline in my view, as you also suggest, is an FTA covering the sectors marked as "high chance": cars, chemicals, aerospace and foodstuffs. The last is problematic because of the WTO negotiations that will have to go on at the same time with third parties. Services are unlikely to be included to any great extent.
Unfortunately, the trade sectors that will be restricted are those where we do best as a country, while those where we do worst will be open trade for the EU side.
A deal like this is similar to the one Korea signed with the EU, which is regarded as very unfavourable to Korea. It will also be a major backward step from where we are now
In that case why would the UK sign up to a deal like that? Because it's still better than no deal at all. We get the to keep the car factories etc, for a while at least. Also, I suppose, it's always worth hanging on in the hope of a better deal some time in the future.
Question is is that enough red meat for say the French to sell to their voters along the lines of " ok we compromised on freedom of movement but we've tamed the beastly Anglo Saxon City"
The Apple episode shows that if we'd stayed in, the EU would have destroyed the City completely. With Brexit, sure they can damage some parts of its Euro business, but the rest will be beyond their clutches, and may thrive even more.
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
He posted line after line about the Burka, not one word about the Burkini, how am I supposed to know the poll included a question from the Burkini from that? Pollsters may well ask more questions, if they do add the key points, links are supposed to provide context and methodology. The misrepresentation if anything was to omit to mention perhaps one of the key poll findings when posting, if posting polls ALL key findings should be included.
You are crazy, I will leave it at that.
Think of me what you wish but in future when posting polls please do not omit some of the key findings
Actually no, what you are suggesting is heavily frowned upon and an illegal breach of copyright. Posting highlights only and a link to full details is all that is permitted under Fair Use.
No actually you are wrong it most certainly is not an illegal breach of copyright to provide one sentence giving a poll finding, not one word of the Burkini poll finding was given. There would have been no breach of copyright by including the key Burkini finding within the highlights and then providing the link for further details
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
He posted line after line about the Burka, not one word about the Burkini, how am I supposed to know the poll included a question from the Burkini from that? Pollsters may well ask more questions, if they do add the key points, links are supposed to provide context and methodology. The misrepresentation if anything was to omit to mention perhaps one of the key poll findings when posting, if posting polls ALL key findings should be included.
You are supposed to know it by reading the linked to article or the actual poll details before falsely claiming a negative. It is utterly dishonest and disreputable to falsely claim a negative if you never bothered to check your facts first.
How am I supposed to know it? I am not psychic. In numerous paragraphs on poll findings on the burka a poll on the burkini was not mentioned once. All it needed was one sentence on it and then the link for context. It is most certainly not dishonest and disreputable to take what is written on this site if key facts are omitted, when mentioning polls all key facts should be included
If you didn't know then why state categorically that it wasn't asked?
........... The Apple episode shows that if we'd stayed in, the EU would have destroyed the City completely. With Brexit, sure they can damage some parts of its Euro business, but the rest will be beyond their clutches, and may thrive even more.
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
He posted line after line about the Burka, not one word about the Burkini, how am I supposed to know the poll included a question from the Burkini from that? Pollsters may well ask more questions, if they do add the key points, links are supposed to provide context and methodology. The misrepresentation if anything was to omit to mention perhaps one of the key poll findings when posting, if posting polls ALL key findings should be included.
You are supposed to know it by reading the linked to article or the actual poll details before falsely claiming a negative. It is utterly dishonest and disreputable to falsely claim a negative if you never bothered to check your facts first.
How am I supposed to know it? I am not psychic. In numerous paragraphs on poll findings on the burka a poll on the burkini was not mentioned once. All it needed was one sentence on it and then the link for context. It is most certainly not dishonest and disreputable to take what is written on this site if key facts are omitted, when mentioning polls all key facts should be included
If you didn't know then why state categorically that it wasn't asked?
I assumed based on what you had written in a brief comment, had you actually given proper highlights of the key poll findings no such assumption would have been made!
Question is is that enough red meat for say the French to sell to their voters along the lines of " ok we compromised on freedom of movement but we've tamed the beastly Anglo Saxon City"
The Apple episode shows that if we'd stayed in, the EU would have destroyed the City completely. With Brexit, sure they can damage some parts of its Euro business, but the rest will be beyond their clutches, and may thrive even more.
I agree the Apple episode, whatever the rights and wrongs ( and yes there's an international corporate tax problem for sure ), shows a classic EU salami land grab . "State aid " is now differing tax rates - something the French have long whined about for example. Now as some on here have suggested they'll probably all climb down a bit on this one and time limit it and reduce 13bn to 1bn or whatever, but now the thought is there that the EU itself might have a sovereign tax "say", and so the tide will have gone out a bit on the nation state and next time the EU gets to start from higher up the beach as it oozes in. And all without anything as sordid as voters getting involved.
So my overriding emotion on the Apple thing is - this is exactly the sort of nonsense I voted against. Better off out of it.
........... The Apple episode shows that if we'd stayed in, the EU would have destroyed the City completely. With Brexit, sure they can damage some parts of its Euro business, but the rest will be beyond their clutches, and may thrive even more.
True.
REMAINIANS keep telling us Brexit was a shot in the dark. We didn't know what we were voting for. "Brexit means anything" etc
For the life of me, I can't remember any REMAIN literature which told us that, in future, unelected EU commissioners would decide corporate tax rates, alter national tax laws, and so forth.
Maybe it was in the small print.
Mission creep is an EC core competency. And now, Bake Off.
Historians cannot go back to the early 19th century to interview members of the landed gentry and aristocracy defending their position against democracy but McEwan's clip provides a passable facsimile of their effortless, sneering drawl, their sense of entitlement, their belief in their God-given superiority, and their belief that what was good for them was good for the rest of the country including the wretched dispossessed that toiled in their fields.
........... The Apple episode shows that if we'd stayed in, the EU would have destroyed the City completely. With Brexit, sure they can damage some parts of its Euro business, but the rest will be beyond their clutches, and may thrive even more.
True.
REMAINIANS keep telling us Brexit was a shot in the dark. We didn't know what we were voting for. "Brexit means anything" etc
For the life of me, I can't remember any REMAIN literature which told us that, in future, unelected EU commissioners would decide corporate tax rates, alter national tax laws, and so forth.
Maybe it was in the small print.
Indeed. Remain was not a vote for the status quo in my view, it was a vote to stay on the bus that's got to go somewhere else unknown, except, for the Eurozone at least that surely means "more Europe" or curtains, and that means almost certainly that the dynamic of our relationship was going to change in unknown ways too. I'd rather be in charge of ourselves.
If Khan stands as MP in 2020, not Mayor, then he will be next Labour Leader. He is a compulsive liar, so will be there best leader by far. I love Corbyn.
........... The Apple episode shows that if we'd stayed in, the EU would have destroyed the City completely. With Brexit, sure they can damage some parts of its Euro business, but the rest will be beyond their clutches, and may thrive even more.
True.
REMAINIANS keep telling us Brexit was a shot in the dark. We didn't know what we were voting for. "Brexit means anything" etc For the life of me, I can't remember any REMAIN literature which told us that, in future, unelected EU commissioners would decide corporate tax rates, alter national tax laws, and so forth. Maybe it was in the small print.
REMAIN never gave us a vision of a wonderful future under the EU. It was more a vision of "much the same" whilst completely ignoring the direction of travel that the EU was going in.
Probably avoided explaining this, lest they frightened the voters with honesty about where the EU was likely to be in 5, 10 and 20 years time. Clegg said something similar in his infamous 2014 debates with Farage, presenting to the voters a vision of the EU in the future as "much the same". The voters decided to trust Farage more than Clegg at those European elections and reduced the LDs to 1 MEP.
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
He posted line after line about the Burka, not one word about the Burkini, how am I supposed to know the poll included a question from the Burkini from that? Pollsters may well ask more questions, if they do add the key points, links are supposed to provide context and methodology. The misrepresentation if anything was to omit to mention perhaps one of the key poll findings when posting, if posting polls ALL key findings should be included.
You are supposed to know it by reading the linked to article or the actual poll details before falsely claiming a negative. It is utterly dishonest and disreputable to falsely claim a negative if you never bothered to check your facts first.
How am I supposed to know it? I am not psychic. In numerous paragraphs on poll findings on the burka a poll on the burkini was not mentioned once. All it needed was one sentence on it and then the link for context. It is most certainly not dishonest and disreputable to take what is written on this site if key facts are omitted, when mentioning polls all key facts should be included
You don't need to be psychic. Before claiming "the poll does not ask ..." the onus is on you and your alone to check if that is actually true. If you are unable to check if it's true or not then don't make the claim!
He quoted highlights then posted a link to the full article. You replied categorically without having bothered to read the article that was linked to. This is not Mr Hall's fault!
He obviously did not quote one of the key highlights, posting links are supposed to provide context after the key points have been made
So what if he didn't quote a figure, where does that give you the right to claim they didn't ask the question?
It is standard operating procedure that pollsters always ask many more questions than just the headline ones. Before anyone ever says that a question wasn't asked the basic due diligence would be to check that first. You didn't do that, so you made a dishonest claim. On a betting site dominated by polls at times, such misrepresentation is shocking and you should apologise. Conduct a basic checking of facts before you make an outright claim that a question wasn't asked at all.
He posted line after line about the Burka, not one word about the Burkini, how am I supposed to know the poll included a question from the Burkini from that? Pollsters may well ask more questions, if they do add the key points, links are supposed to provide context and methodology. The misrepresentation if anything was to omit to mention perhaps one of the key poll findings when posting, if posting polls ALL key findings should be included.
You are supposed to know it by reading the linked to article or the actual poll details before falsely claiming a negative. It is utterly dishonest and disreputable to falsely claim a negative if you never bothered to check your facts first.
How am I supposed to know it? I am not psychic. In numerous paragraphs on poll findings on the burka a poll on the burkini was not mentioned once. All it needed was one sentence on it and then the link for context. It is most certainly not dishonest and disreputable to take what is written on this site if key facts are omitted, when mentioning polls all key facts should be included
You don't need to be psychic. Before claiming "the poll does not ask ..." the onus is on you and your alone to check if that is actually true. If you are unable to check if it's true or not then don't make the claim!
I would appreciate a post such as this from our friend HYUFD
Historians cannot go back to the early 19th century to interview members of the landed gentry and aristocracy defending their position against democracy but McEwan's clip provides a passable facsimile of their effortless, sneering drawl, their sense of entitlement, their belief in their God-given superiority, and their belief that what was good for them was good for the rest of the country including the wretched dispossessed that toiled in their fields.
For me in the end, and having started as a remainer, what really clinched it was the attitude and "threats" of remainers, I couldn't stomach being on their side. I was willing to take the risk and go against some of my instincts rather than side with people who I find repellent. That the outcome has annoyed them so much is something I'm enjoying a lot. A couple of months on I'm intensely relaxed about my vote, and confident I made the right decision.
Dianne Abbott on the Junior Doctors is just so depressing. How can anyone even start to justify Junior Doctors walking out of A and E for five days. They are being led by Corbyn supporters whose stated intention is to bring down the Government. This is a modern day miner's strike and must be resisted. Just impose the contracts as there is no talking to them
Shape of things to come? Even with the state of UKIP!
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB LAB in 3rd place behind UKIP amongst the 65+ segment in this evening’s ICM poll. CON 58% LAB 15% UKIP 16% LD 8%
That's the established pattern now, not really new news. Labour were on 13% amongst 65+ in the last YouGov, with 58% Con and UKIP again 2nd on 16%. Yet even at these rock bottom levels, Corbyn is still underperforming against his party: 8% of those 65+ think Corbyn would be the better PM. 72% prefer May.
Has Labour ever performed worse amongst those who were alive when Clement Attlee was PM?
Historians cannot go back to the early 19th century to interview members of the landed gentry and aristocracy defending their position against democracy but McEwan's clip provides a passable facsimile of their effortless, sneering drawl, their sense of entitlement, their belief in their God-given superiority, and their belief that what was good for them was good for the rest of the country including the wretched dispossessed that toiled in their fields.
For me in the end, and having started as a remainer, what really clinched it was the attitude and "threats" of remainers, I couldn't stomach being on their side. I was willing to take the risk and go against some of my instincts rather than side with people who I find repellent. That the outcome has annoyed them so much is something I'm enjoying a lot. A couple of months on I'm intensely relaxed about my vote, and confident I made the right decision.
I'm intensely relaxed too. My only disappointment two and a bit months in is the BoE being a bunch of prats and cutting interest rates. Numpties.
We export the majority of our output and the number of suppliers and customers who've mentioned Brexit is a big fat zero. Not one, not once. In other news today we invoiced customers in India, USA, Indonesia, and Israel. Think we've done Saudi, UAE, Pakistan, Japan and Turkey too this month. Amazing really as none are in the single market, so cannot possibly exist if you listened to some. The large enquiry from Russia that arrived late today is clearly fictitious too.
On topic: It's possible to over intellectualise things---or over cook might be a better term. Like a recurring infection Corbyn looks like becoming a disaster for Labour. He should represent a minority splinter party in another political system.
The imperious sneering, superior chortling, and bogus "neutrality" of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, of this selfsame parish, shifted me from 60% LEAVE to 80%.
A year ago I was a die-hard remainer*, believing that Cameron would easily be able to satisfy me with his renegotiations. But when the details of the renegotiations "leaked", and they weren't the usual expectations management but arguably not even quite as dire as the result, that's when I started to change my mind. My decision to vote Leave was almost entirely driven by the Remain campaign and the things Remainers have said. I never expected to vote Leave so I suppose I owe them some thanks for making me see sense.
* Reluctant, but a remainer despite all my reservations.
A man whose entire life has been bound up with the EU, and informed by his own europhilia.
With quotes from The Centre for European Reform, a body setup to push europhilia in the UK under the guise of "reforming the EU". Thus Brexit leaves them with no future. When will their funding be cut? http://www.cer.org.uk/corporate-donors#tabs
Historians cannot go back to the early 19th century to interview members of the landed gentry and aristocracy defending their position against democracy but McEwan's clip provides a passable facsimile of their effortless, sneering drawl, their sense of entitlement, their belief in their God-given superiority, and their belief that what was good for them was good for the rest of the country including the wretched dispossessed that toiled in their fields.
There are plenty of written records and caricatures you could refer to, and, yes the similarities are marked.
Dianne Abbott on the Junior Doctors is just so depressing. How can anyone even start to justify Junior Doctors walking out of A and E for five days. They are being led by Corbyn supporters whose stated intention is to bring down the Government. This is a modern day miner's strike and must be resisted. Just impose the contracts as there is no talking to them
The strike exists because of imposition. The Juniors want talks to continue.
For me the Irish getting slapped by the EU on Brexit is the best thing to happen since we voted out.
Schadenfreude? yes. But this event shows the severe reservations many have about the EU's attitude are absolutely correct.
It's like that moment in 'Independence Day' when the Spaceship over the White House blasts the 'friendship' helicopter trying to extend an olive branch. And the realisation....this f*cker IS hostile.
Dianne Abbott on the Junior Doctors is just so depressing. How can anyone even start to justify Junior Doctors walking out of A and E for five days. They are being led by Corbyn supporters whose stated intention is to bring down the Government. This is a modern day miner's strike and must be resisted. Just impose the contracts as there is no talking to them
The strike exists because of imposition. The Juniors want talks to continue.
A man whose entire life has been bound up with the EU, and informed by his own europhilia.
With quotes from The Centre for European Reform, a body setup to push europhilia in the UK under the guise of "reforming the EU". Thus Brexit leaves them with no future. When will their funding be cut? http://www.cer.org.uk/corporate-donors#tabs
Dianne Abbott on the Junior Doctors is just so depressing. How can anyone even start to justify Junior Doctors walking out of A and E for five days. They are being led by Corbyn supporters whose stated intention is to bring down the Government. This is a modern day miner's strike and must be resisted. Just impose the contracts as there is no talking to them
The strike exists because of imposition. The Juniors want talks to continue.
Piffle.
Simply a statement of fact. The contract is being imposed hence the strike.
For me the Irish getting slapped by the EU on Brexit is the best thing to happen since we voted out.
Schadenfreude? yes. But this event shows the severe reservations many have about the EU's attitude are absolutely correct.
It's like that moment in 'Independence Day' when the Spaceship over the White House blasts the 'friendship' helicopter trying to extend an olive branch.
One of the few scenes from Independence Day that I remember was the group of loony soap dodger types celebrating the arrival of the aliens and welcoming them with open arms. Moments later they were vaporised....
Dianne Abbott on the Junior Doctors is just so depressing. How can anyone even start to justify Junior Doctors walking out of A and E for five days. They are being led by Corbyn supporters whose stated intention is to bring down the Government. This is a modern day miner's strike and must be resisted. Just impose the contracts as there is no talking to them
The strike exists because of imposition. The Juniors want talks to continue.
The imposition is the correct action by the Government. This is political and the Junior Doctors will lose.
Dianne Abbott on the Junior Doctors is just so depressing. How can anyone even start to justify Junior Doctors walking out of A and E for five days. They are being led by Corbyn supporters whose stated intention is to bring down the Government. This is a modern day miner's strike and must be resisted. Just impose the contracts as there is no talking to them
A challenge for Mrs May. It probably needed a very "nice" person as the SoS for Health to gradually let the doctors have enough rope to hang themselves.
I was saying that yesterday here. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case it does help to explain to Americans — many of whom seem to think the Brits have gone a bit mad — that the EU has some real powers to intervene in things they would consider the prerogative of a national government.
Dianne Abbott on the Junior Doctors is just so depressing. How can anyone even start to justify Junior Doctors walking out of A and E for five days. They are being led by Corbyn supporters whose stated intention is to bring down the Government. This is a modern day miner's strike and must be resisted. Just impose the contracts as there is no talking to them
The strike exists because of imposition. The Juniors want talks to continue.
I thought Dr that the BMA were satisfied with the last round of negotiations? So if they are happy, or at least, satisfied, what's the point in striking further?
I could understand the logic of a week's strike if talks had broken down and the government had threatened mass sackings coupled with huge pay cuts, but they haven't. This junior doctors are instead starting to look more and more like Violet Elizabeth after she's been refused an icecream and had a shot of cocaine.
I think that if they go ahead with this they will forfeit all public sympathy and probably face a very unpleasant public backlash. I can't imagine they want that but clearly they don't see how utterly unreasonable they appear to most of the public, who can only dream of that kind of money and many of whom work hours at least as long.
We export the majority of our output and the number of suppliers and customers who've mentioned Brexit is a big fat zero. Not one, not once. In other news today we invoiced customers in India, USA, Indonesia, and Israel. Think we've done Saudi, UAE, Pakistan, Japan and Turkey too this month. Amazing really as none are in the single market, so cannot possibly exist if you listened to some. The large enquiry from Russia that arrived late today is clearly fictitious too.
We may screw up trade with out nearest neighbours, although I expect it won't be a total disaster, but yes there's a whole wide world out there and hopefully we start looking at trade (especially for services) as something we need to think about globally.
Dianne Abbott on the Junior Doctors is just so depressing. How can anyone even start to justify Junior Doctors walking out of A and E for five days. They are being led by Corbyn supporters whose stated intention is to bring down the Government. This is a modern day miner's strike and must be resisted. Just impose the contracts as there is no talking to them
The strike exists because of imposition. The Juniors want talks to continue.
Piffle.
Simply a statement of fact. The contract is being imposed hence the strike.
The doctors representatives agreed a deal. The members decided to remove their support. How can any one negotiate anything with people who act in that way? Talks with such a group of people are futile. Until the junior doctors could prove that they can operate in a professional manner then there is no point in talking. Quite how the doctors can prove that they can be trusted in a negotiation is of course very hard to see, maybe even impossible due to the dysfunctional group that they have become.
The imperious sneering, superior chortling, and bogus "neutrality" of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, of this selfsame parish, shifted me from 60% LEAVE to 80%.
A year ago I was a die-hard remainer*, believing that Cameron would easily be able to satisfy me with his renegotiations. But when the details of the renegotiations "leaked", and they weren't the usual expectations management but arguably not even quite as dire as the result, that's when I started to change my mind. My decision to vote Leave was almost entirely driven by the Remain campaign and the things Remainers have said. I never expected to vote Leave so I suppose I owe them some thanks for making me see sense....
This is impossible. We were regularly advised by the infamous europhile PB triumvirate of Meeks,TSE and Nabavi that the REMAIN campaign was perfect and that the LEAVE campaign was converting LEAVErs to REMAIN....... It was complete Horlicks.
The imperious sneering, superior chortling, and bogus "neutrality" of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, of this selfsame parish, shifted me from 60% LEAVE to 80%.
A year ago I was a die-hard remainer*, believing that Cameron would easily be able to satisfy me with his renegotiations. But when the details of the renegotiations "leaked", and they weren't the usual expectations management but arguably not even quite as dire as the result, that's when I started to change my mind. My decision to vote Leave was almost entirely driven by the Remain campaign and the things Remainers have said. I never expected to vote Leave so I suppose I owe them some thanks for making me see sense.
* Reluctant, but a remainer despite all my reservations.
I was a Remainer this time last year, and lived in happy expectation of Cameron delivering enough to quieten my eurosceptic soul.
His "deal" was a catastrophe, both in the promise and in the actuality, and shunted me into the LEAVE camp. I never left. The sneering aristo-Remainers pushed me further...
Yes, it is a source of constant personal embarrassment to me that I voted on the same side as David Lammy, Jeremy Corbyn, Owen Smith and Jean-Claude Druncker.
I genuinely thought it was marginally the best decision in the circumstances but I'm slowly coming round to the view that I should have gone with my gut and voted out regardless of the risks, given the risks of staying in are rapidly being clarified as at least equally great.
We export the majority of our output and the number of suppliers and customers who've mentioned Brexit is a big fat zero. Not one, not once. In other news today we invoiced customers in India, USA, Indonesia, and Israel. Think we've done Saudi, UAE, Pakistan, Japan and Turkey too this month. Amazing really as none are in the single market, so cannot possibly exist if you listened to some. The large enquiry from Russia that arrived late today is clearly fictitious too.
We may screw up trade with out nearest neighbours, although I expect it won't be a total disaster, but yes there's a whole wide world out there and hopefully we start looking at trade (especially for services) as something we need to think about globally.
My point exactly. Most of the company's better prospects these days are in the wide world outside of Europe. It's 2016 not 1973.
The imperious sneering, superior chortling, and bogus "neutrality" of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, of this selfsame parish, shifted me from 60% LEAVE to 80%.
A year ago I was a die-hard remainer*, believing that Cameron would easily be able to satisfy me with his renegotiations. But when the details of the renegotiations "leaked", and they weren't the usual expectations management but arguably not even quite as dire as the result, that's when I started to change my mind. My decision to vote Leave was almost entirely driven by the Remain campaign and the things Remainers have said. I never expected to vote Leave so I suppose I owe them some thanks for making me see sense....
This is impossible. We were regularly advised by the infamous europhile PB triumvirate of Meeks,TSE and Nabavi that the REMAIN campaign was perfect and that the LEAVE campaign was converting LEAVErs to REMAIN....... It was complete Horlicks.
Find a single example where I said that the Remain campaign was perfect.
My anecdote is a conversation with my younger sister last night. Moderately senior manager in Finnish multi-national. Brexit hasn't come up once internally. Nothing on their intranet, no senior management position statement, no contingency planning. Complete non-event.
I saw a woman in a niqab/burqa in my Camden Waitrose today. First time ever.
I fucking loathe it. Ban it.
Ban it immediately. Ban it.
Wait 'till you see one driving a car. Safety is my main worry. As a cyclist and pedestrian I'm curious to know whether they can see properly. How would one find out?
I was saying that yesterday here. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case it does help to explain to Americans — many of whom seem to think the Brits have gone a bit mad — that the EU has some real powers to intervene in things they would consider the prerogative of a national government.
Trumpites certainly do not think the Brits went mad
The imperious sneering, superior chortling, and bogus "neutrality" of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, of this selfsame parish, shifted me from 60% LEAVE to 80%.
A year ago I was a die-hard remainer*, believing that Cameron would easily be able to satisfy me with his renegotiations. But when the details of the renegotiations "leaked", and they weren't the usual expectations management but arguably not even quite as dire as the result, that's when I started to change my mind. My decision to vote Leave was almost entirely driven by the Remain campaign and the things Remainers have said. I never expected to vote Leave so I suppose I owe them some thanks for making me see sense.
* Reluctant, but a remainer despite all my reservations.
I was a Remainer this time last year, and lived in happy expectation of Cameron delivering enough to quieten my eurosceptic soul.
His "deal" was a catastrophe, both in the promise and in the actuality, and shunted me into the LEAVE camp. I never left. The sneering aristo-Remainers pushed me further...
Yes, it is a source of constant personal embarrassment to me that I voted on the same side as David Lammy, Jeremy Corbyn, Owen Smith and Jean-Claude Druncker.
I genuinely thought it was marginally the best decision in the circumstances but I'm slowly coming round to the view that I should have gone with my gut and voted out regardless of the risks, given the risks of staying in are rapidly being clarified as at least equally great.
Yes, you voted on the same side as people who think this:
Dianne Abbott on the Junior Doctors is just so depressing. How can anyone even start to justify Junior Doctors walking out of A and E for five days. They are being led by Corbyn supporters whose stated intention is to bring down the Government. This is a modern day miner's strike and must be resisted. Just impose the contracts as there is no talking to them
The strike exists because of imposition. The Juniors want talks to continue.
Is that really want the talks to continue to resolve matters, or just wants talks to continue so they look reasonable without actually having any intention of resolving matters?
I don't know that dispute - frankly, I no longer care about such matters though I know I should, because it is always such a political topic filled with lies and misrepresentations, and I'll just be told it's a disaster that needs more money or another reorganization in a year or two anyway - but it increasingly resembles NIMBY protestors who always demand 'more consultation' no matter how much ever occurs, a delaying tactic only.
I saw a woman in a niqab/burqa in my Camden Waitrose today. First time ever.
I fucking loathe it. Ban it.
Ban it immediately. Ban it.
Wait 'till you see one driving a car. Safety is my main worry. As a cyclist and pedestrian I'm curious to know whether they can see properly. How would one find out?
How do they know who is taking the driving test? Does the face need to be revealed for that?
This is impossible. We were regularly advised by the infamous europhile PB triumvirate of Meeks,TSE and Nabavi that the REMAIN campaign was perfect and that the LEAVE campaign was converting LEAVErs to REMAIN....... It was complete Horlicks.
Whenever you make that argument, I've linked enough of my threads showing you're talking bollocks.
Just once, with feeling, here's just some of the threads I wrote.
The EURef might be more like the AV referendum and not the Indyref
I could link links to more of my pieces, but I'd hate for you to look even more stupider than you already are. Normally when I post these threads, you go silent, so any chance of you finding a thread of me saying Remain was perfect?
You're in danger of sounding like slow Sam from Essex, my Muslim obsessed fan.
The imperious sneering, superior chortling, and bogus "neutrality" of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, of this selfsame parish, shifted me from 60% LEAVE to 80%.
A year ago I was a die-hard remainer*, believing that Cameron would easily be able to satisfy me with his renegotiations. But when the details of the renegotiations "leaked", and they weren't the usual expectations management but arguably not even quite as dire as the result, that's when I started to change my mind. My decision to vote Leave was almost entirely driven by the Remain campaign and the things Remainers have said. I never expected to vote Leave so I suppose I owe them some thanks for making me see sense....
This is impossible. We were regularly advised by the infamous europhile PB triumvirate of Meeks,TSE and Nabavi that the REMAIN campaign was perfect and that the LEAVE campaign was converting LEAVErs to REMAIN....... It was complete Horlicks.
Tony Harris Today JC said he donated pay rec'd from Press TV to his CLP. The 4 pages of donations to INCLP on the EC's website include nothing from him
The imperious sneering, superior chortling, and bogus "neutrality" of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, of this selfsame parish, shifted me from 60% LEAVE to 80%.
A year ago I was a die-hard remainer*, believing that Cameron would easily be able to satisfy me with his renegotiations. But when the details of the renegotiations "leaked", and they weren't the usual expectations management but arguably not even quite as dire as the result, that's when I started to change my mind. My decision to vote Leave was almost entirely driven by the Remain campaign and the things Remainers have said. I never expected to vote Leave so I suppose I owe them some thanks for making me see sense.
* Reluctant, but a remainer despite all my reservations.
I was a Remainer this time last year, and lived in happy expectation of Cameron delivering enough to quieten my eurosceptic soul.
His "deal" was a catastrophe, both in the promise and in the actuality, and shunted me into the LEAVE camp. I never left. The sneering aristo-Remainers pushed me further...
Yes, it is a source of constant personal embarrassment to me that I voted on the same side as David Lammy, Jeremy Corbyn, Owen Smith and Jean-Claude Druncker.
I genuinely thought it was marginally the best decision in the circumstances but I'm slowly coming round to the view that I should have gone with my gut and voted out regardless of the risks, given the risks of staying in are rapidly being clarified as at least equally great.
Yes, you voted on the same side as people who think this:
Well be fair Runnymede, if I had been voting leave I would have been saying in effect that I trusted Michael Gove, who regards all teachers as his mortal enemies and has spent many years trying to destroy their profession.
Edit - can I clarify that didn't decide my vote, but it certainly soothed my conscience at the time.
This is impossible. We were regularly advised by the infamous europhile PB triumvirate of Meeks,TSE and Nabavi that the REMAIN campaign was perfect and that the LEAVE campaign was converting LEAVErs to REMAIN....... It was complete Horlicks.
Whenever you make that argument, I've linked enough of my threads showing you're talking bollocks.
Just once, with feeling, here's just some of the threads I wrote.
The EURef might be more like the AV referendum and not the Indyref
I could link links to more of my pieces, but I'd hate for you to look even more stupider than you already are. Normally when I post these threads, you go silent, so any chance of you finding a thread of me saying Remain was perfect?
'I could link links to more of my pieces, but I'd hate for you to look even more stupider than you already are.'
The imperious sneering, superior chortling, and bogus "neutrality" of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, of this selfsame parish, shifted me from 60% LEAVE to 80%.
A year ago I was a die-hard remainer*, believing that Cameron would easily be able to satisfy me with his renegotiations. But when the details of the renegotiations "leaked", and they weren't the usual expectations management but arguably not even quite as dire as the result, that's when I started to change my mind. My decision to vote Leave was almost entirely driven by the Remain campaign and the things Remainers have said. I never expected to vote Leave so I suppose I owe them some thanks for making me see sense.
* Reluctant, but a remainer despite all my reservations.
I was a Remainer this time last year, and lived in happy expectation of Cameron delivering enough to quieten my eurosceptic soul.
His "deal" was a catastrophe, both in the promise and in the actuality, and shunted me into the LEAVE camp. I never left. The sneering aristo-Remainers pushed me further...
Yes, it is a source of constant personal embarrassment to me that I voted on the same side as David Lammy, Jeremy Corbyn, Owen Smith and Jean-Claude Druncker.
I genuinely thought it was marginally the best decision in the circumstances but I'm slowly coming round to the view that I should have gone with my gut and voted out regardless of the risks, given the risks of staying in are rapidly being clarified as at least equally great.
Both sides have their crosses to bear. Despite being an avowed BOOer since the EU Constitution/Lisbon shenanigans, I was very worried about the timing, 2016 really wasn't the best time to hold a referendum as the economy isn't in great shape, despite surface appearances.
I'm still not sure I did the right thing, though the initial shock I expected has been far milder than I could have hoped. Part of growing old I suppose. Certainty is for the young.
Why is the Mexican president hosting an official press conference with Trump? Makes Trump look presidential.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump backtrack on a whole bunch of comments he has made on immigration due to having a really constructive meeting with the president.
Stephen Bush A plurality of Liberal Democrat voters have a weird idea of the word "liberal" it seems. https://t.co/MNKR1ixIM8
1) Party names are no guarantee of a party's ideological position. Many Tories would argue they have not had a proper conservative party for awhile, and there are several Conservative parties called Liberal parties in the world. 2) Even where the name does reflect the party position, many people will support only part of the ideological position. And others will have no real understanding of it and support what they think is the position. 3) Usually liberal or progressive or fair or sensible policies to most people just means things they support, so such a incongruity does not occur to them. 4) And yes, some few may still be liberal but feel in this instance some sacrifice of liberty is justified.
I saw a woman in a niqab/burqa in my Camden Waitrose today. First time ever.
I fucking loathe it. Ban it.
Ban it immediately. Ban it.
Wait 'till you see one driving a car. Safety is my main worry. As a cyclist and pedestrian I'm curious to know whether they can see properly. How would one find out?
How do they know who is taking the driving test? Does the face need to be revealed for that?
edited to add: good evening, everyone.
Cycling, I was seriously cut off last year by such a one. But whether it was ignorance of the highway code or something worse I can't say.
The jury is out for me. I reluctantly voted Remain, although as the votes came in I cheered Leave. Because I honestly felt (and feel) that the best future for the UK was outside Europe. I just wasn't sure if we'd get it, or some knock off with all the disadvantages of Brexit and none of the advantages. But every time some pillock in Europe mouths off, I feel a little more confident in Britain's new path.
The imperious sneering, superior chortling, and bogus "neutrality" of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, of this selfsame parish, shifted me from 60% LEAVE to 80%.
A year ago I was a die-hard remainer*, believing that Cameron would easily be able to satisfy me with his renegotiations. But when the details of the renegotiations "leaked", and they weren't the usual expectations management but arguably not even quite as dire as the result, that's when I started to change my mind. My decision to vote Leave was almost entirely driven by the Remain campaign and the things Remainers have said. I never expected to vote Leave so I suppose I owe them some thanks for making me see sense....
This is impossible. We were regularly advised by the infamous europhile PB triumvirate of Meeks,TSE and Nabavi that the REMAIN campaign was perfect and that the LEAVE campaign was converting LEAVErs to REMAIN....... It was complete Horlicks.
Find a single example where I said that the Remain campaign was perfect.
You cannot recognize deliberate hyperbole, really?
Dianne Abbott on the Junior Doctors is just so depressing. How can anyone even start to justify Junior Doctors walking out of A and E for five days. They are being led by Corbyn supporters whose stated intention is to bring down the Government. This is a modern day miner's strike and must be resisted. Just impose the contracts as there is no talking to them
The strike exists because of imposition. The Juniors want talks to continue.
I thought Dr that the BMA were satisfied with the last round of negotiations? So if they are happy, or at least, satisfied, what's the point in striking further?
I could understand the logic of a week's strike if talks had broken down and the government had threatened mass sackings coupled with huge pay cuts, but they haven't. This junior doctors are instead starting to look more and more like Violet Elizabeth after she's been refused an icecream and had a shot of cocaine.
I think that if they go ahead with this they will forfeit all public sympathy and probably face a very unpleasant public backlash. I can't imagine they want that but clearly they don't see how utterly unreasonable they appear to most of the public, who can only dream of that kind of money and many of whom work hours at least as long.
It is our NHS not their NHS. And the strike is about money not patient safety.
I am genuinely interested to see what happens. I just cannot see how the Tories square the circle. Saying we want it all is not going to be a sustainable position. Some very, very hard choices will have to be made.
Although the stuff today was almost entirely pure waffle, I think we are beginning to see the outlines of where the square is going to have rounded edges. The strategy seems to be a red line on freedom of movement, and, given that constraint, negotiate as much access to the Single Market as can be achieved. I think they are resigned to the reality that that means an end to financial passporting and that therefore there will be at least short-term damage to the City. I further think they will try all-out to get tariff- and hassle-free trade in manufactured goods (especially for the car industry, which has most to lose), and that should be attainable as it is very much in both sides' interest and the acquis communitaire which we're already signed up to makes it much easier than negotiating a free-trade agreement from scratch. The main areas of uncertainty on the economic side still relate to services.
Of course this is all subject to the politics of the other 27 EU countries, so no guarantees.
Stephen Bush A plurality of Liberal Democrat voters have a weird idea of the word "liberal" it seems. https://t.co/MNKR1ixIM8
1) Party names are no guarantee of a party's ideological position. Many Tories would argue they have not had a proper conservative party for awhile, and there are several Conservative parties called Liberal parties in the world. 2) Even where the name does reflect the party position, many people will support only part of the ideological position. And others will have no real understanding of it and support what they think is the position. 3) Usually liberal or progressive or fair or sensible policies to most people just means things they support, so such a incongruity does not occur to them. 4) And yes, some few may still be liberal but feel in this instance some sacrifice of liberty is justified.
Liberals were less supportive of the burka ban than voters for other parties and they opposed a burkini ban as did Labour voters
The imperious sneering, superior chortling, and bogus "neutrality" of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, of this selfsame parish, shifted me from 60% LEAVE to 80%.
A year ago I was a die-hard remainer*, believing that Cameron would easily be able to satisfy me with his renegotiations. But when the details of the renegotiations "leaked", and they weren't the usual expectations management but arguably not even quite as dire as the result, that's when I started to change my mind. My decision to vote Leave was almost entirely driven by the Remain campaign and the things Remainers have said. I never expected to vote Leave so I suppose I owe them some thanks for making me see sense....
This is impossible. We were regularly advised by the infamous europhile PB triumvirate of Meeks,TSE and Nabavi that the REMAIN campaign was perfect and that the LEAVE campaign was converting LEAVErs to REMAIN....... It was complete Horlicks.
Find a single example where I said that the Remain campaign was perfect.
You cannot recognize deliberate hyperbole, really?
This is impossible. We were regularly advised by the infamous europhile PB triumvirate of Meeks,TSE and Nabavi that the REMAIN campaign was perfect and that the LEAVE campaign was converting LEAVErs to REMAIN....... It was complete Horlicks.
The Leave campaign was rubbish, a lot of nonsense, dubious figures, some stupid dog-whistle posters, and it was divided.
Despite all the advantages Remain had their campaign was worse, it was an almost endless succession of the great and the good either threatening or talking down a country I love dearly. And there was hardly a positive word for the EU, something apparently so vital to our country's interest but Remain struggled to name some of these good points. I presume that the PR, marketing, and advertising people behind the Remain campaign are now both unemployed and unemployable in those fields.
Comments
The baseline in my view, as you also suggest, is an FTA covering the sectors marked as "high chance": cars, chemicals, aerospace and foodstuffs. The last is problematic because of the WTO negotiations that will have to go on at the same time with third parties. Services are unlikely to be included to any great extent.
Unfortunately, the trade sectors that will be restricted are those where we do best as a country, while those where we do worst will be open trade for the EU side.
A deal like this is similar to the one Korea signed with the EU, which is regarded as very unfavourable to Korea. It will also be a major backward step from where we are now
In that case why would the UK sign up to a deal like that? Because it's still better than no deal at all. We get the to keep the car factories etc, for a while at least. Also, I suppose, it's always worth hanging on in the hope of a better deal some time in the future.
The Apple episode shows that if we'd stayed in, the EU would have destroyed the City completely. With Brexit, sure they can damage some parts of its Euro business, but the rest will be beyond their clutches, and may thrive even more.
Breaking: The Met Police say that Sean Creighton, 44, from Enfield has been charged with nine public order offences and a terror offence.
So my overriding emotion on the Apple thing is - this is exactly the sort of nonsense I voted against. Better off out of it.
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/771037992811163648
This is the most bizarre year I've ever experienced in terms of politics.
Probably avoided explaining this, lest they frightened the voters with honesty about where the EU was likely to be in 5, 10 and 20 years time. Clegg said something similar in his infamous 2014 debates with Farage, presenting to the voters a vision of the EU in the future as "much the same". The voters decided to trust Farage more than Clegg at those European elections and reduced the LDs to 1 MEP.
White pride
FBU leader Matt Wrack: "The 4th biggest political movement in Britain is suspended members of the Labour party."
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/photo-dozens-empty-seats-hillarys-speech-veterans/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ELbX5CMomE
He meant to say plebs didn't he?
NY Times on the Brexit muddle.
Wellington described his 1st cabinet as PM as 'an extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders & they
wanted to stay & discuss them.'
#May
Ram-packed?
Challenge to JC is not about his leadership says John McDonnell "it is the establishment saying 'how dare you elect a socialist leader'"
John McDonnell on JC having a small cabinet: "It's given me ideas about slimmed down government" he tells Momentum gathering.
Has Labour ever performed worse amongst those who were alive when Clement Attlee was PM?
We export the majority of our output and the number of suppliers and customers who've mentioned Brexit is a big fat zero. Not one, not once. In other news today we invoiced customers in India, USA, Indonesia, and Israel. Think we've done Saudi, UAE, Pakistan, Japan and Turkey too this month. Amazing really as none are in the single market, so cannot possibly exist if you listened to some. The large enquiry from Russia that arrived late today is clearly fictitious too.
It's possible to over intellectualise things---or over cook might be a better term. Like a recurring infection Corbyn looks like becoming a disaster for Labour. He should represent a minority splinter party in another political system.
* Reluctant, but a remainer despite all my reservations.
http://www.cer.org.uk/corporate-donors#tabs
New ABC/Washington Post Poll: Clinton as Disliked as Trump https://t.co/ydCo43BxYt
Schadenfreude? yes. But this event shows the severe reservations many have about the EU's attitude are absolutely correct.
It's like that moment in 'Independence Day' when the Spaceship over the White House blasts the 'friendship' helicopter trying to extend an olive branch. And the realisation....this f*cker IS hostile.
I could understand the logic of a week's strike if talks had broken down and the government had threatened mass sackings coupled with huge pay cuts, but they haven't. This junior doctors are instead starting to look more and more like Violet Elizabeth after she's been refused an icecream and had a shot of cocaine.
I think that if they go ahead with this they will forfeit all public sympathy and probably face a very unpleasant public backlash. I can't imagine they want that but clearly they don't see how utterly unreasonable they appear to most of the public, who can only dream of that kind of money and many of whom work hours at least as long.
How your position on a ballot paper can affect your success (surname Wellbelove!) https://t.co/pkayhiLHfP https://t.co/1qpZOPbSg1
Con: 66%
Lab 48%
LD 42%
UKIP 84%
twitter.com/YouGov/status/770988369270669312/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
I genuinely thought it was marginally the best decision in the circumstances but I'm slowly coming round to the view that I should have gone with my gut and voted out regardless of the risks, given the risks of staying in are rapidly being clarified as at least equally great.
The Independent
'Tell the EU to f*** off', says Ryanair boss after Apple ruling https://t.co/QRp9bG0IOd
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/why-elections-are-bad-for-democracy
Your repentance is understandable, and welcome...
Just got back from Lynton and Lynmouth in North Devon.
I saw one there. On the beach. Full veil. Full Niqab/Burka. Everything.
In. North. Devon.
I don't know that dispute - frankly, I no longer care about such matters though I know I should, because it is always such a political topic filled with lies and misrepresentations, and I'll just be told it's a disaster that needs more money or another reorganization in a year or two anyway - but it increasingly resembles NIMBY protestors who always demand 'more consultation' no matter how much ever occurs, a delaying tactic only.
edited to add: good evening, everyone.
Just once, with feeling, here's just some of the threads I wrote.
The EURef might be more like the AV referendum and not the Indyref
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/17/the-euref-might-be-more-like-the-av-referendum-and-not-the-indyref/
Leave’s major advantage in the last three weeks of the campaign. The Tory press is on their side
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/02/leaves-major-advantage-in-the-last-three-weeks-of-the-campaign-the-tory-press-is-on-their-side/
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life
These don’t appear to be the actions of a PM confident of winning the referendum
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/01/greater-love-hath-no-man-than-this-that-he-lay-down-his-friends-for-his-life/
Remain’s long term problems
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/04/24/remains-long-term-problems/
Michael Gove could be set to play the role of Brutus to David Cameron’s Caesar
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/28/michael-gove-could-be-set-to-play-the-role-of-brutus-to-david-camerons-caesar/
Meet the man who could win the referendum for Leave
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/21/meet-the-man-who-could-win-the-referendum-for-leave/
Latest YouGov poll suggests Remain might experience a caTAFFstrophe in Wales
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/07/latest-yougov-poll-suggests-remain-might-see-a-cataffstrophe-in-wales/
Independence Day is going to be mentioned a lot in the run up to June 23rd
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/08/31/nick-palmer-on-what-next-if-corbyn-sweeps-the-board/
Apathy and the older voters might be the key for Out winning the referendum
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/31/apathy-and-the-older-voters-might-be-the-key-for-out-winning-the-referendum/
I could link links to more of my pieces, but I'd hate for you to look even more stupider than you already are. Normally when I post these threads, you go silent, so any chance of you finding a thread of me saying Remain was perfect?
You're in danger of sounding like slow Sam from Essex, my Muslim obsessed fan.
Today JC said he donated pay rec'd from Press TV to his CLP. The 4 pages of donations to INCLP on the EC's website include nothing from him
Edit - can I clarify that didn't decide my vote, but it certainly soothed my conscience at the time.
Edit that on the quick!
I'm still not sure I did the right thing, though the initial shock I expected has been far milder than I could have hoped. Part of growing old I suppose. Certainty is for the young.
2) Even where the name does reflect the party position, many people will support only part of the ideological position. And others will have no real understanding of it and support what they think is the position.
3) Usually liberal or progressive or fair or sensible policies to most people just means things they support, so such a incongruity does not occur to them.
4) And yes, some few may still be liberal but feel in this instance some sacrifice of liberty is justified.
And I think it's the right one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/burkinis-heres-why-we-should-fight-them-on-the-beaches/
A line in the sand must be drawn.
https://twitter.com/TheRedRag/status/771063116503343104
Despite all the advantages Remain had their campaign was worse, it was an almost endless succession of the great and the good either threatening or talking down a country I love dearly. And there was hardly a positive word for the EU, something apparently so vital to our country's interest but Remain struggled to name some of these good points. I presume that the PR, marketing, and advertising people behind the Remain campaign are now both unemployed and unemployable in those fields.