What about big, proud, open, expansive, trade based, internationally engaging nationalism? Your comment seems to suggest anyone who is proud of their country and wishes for it to become a better country but still a country (as opposed to an administrative region of a superstate) is somehow compromised.
Anyone who claims the vote was not won by the message "we hate foreigners" is an idiot.
Like Dan Hannan.
Oh you're dead right that that was the deciding factor - ruthlessly exploited by those who were fighting for the same result but different reasons. The 'freedom' vote has been surpressed by the establishment for 40 years. Vote Leave took their chance. I crawled across broken glass to vote leave. But would be entirely happy with a soft Brexit. All my relatives who voted remain did so despite their intrinsic dislike and distrust of the EU because they were persuaded by Project Fear. All have since told me they'd vote leave if it was rerun today.
I would however somewhat dispute your choice of the word 'hate'. I think 'resent' is better. It's not a 'yuk Romanian untermensch' view so much as a 'why am I at the back of the housing, school places, GP slots, jobs queue with all these Romanians in town' view. For some that morphs into hate. But not for most.
You have to hand it to Smithson. He sure does know how to push buttons on this forum.
He highlighted a value 1/33 bet on the last thread, along with good reasoning why there was no chance of a Galloway-style upset - so thanks very much to OGH.
Mr. Fire, that's true, but the print media was practically the only area where Leave had an advantage. Broadcast media (whilst largely having pro-Remain sympathies) was neutral, the political Establishment was for Remain, as was business, international bodies, and so on. Not to mention the status quo.
I'm still surprised we voted to Leave given how lopsided the two sides were.
Mr. Mortimer, aye, not to mention many MPs (Miliband, Clegg, some wet lettuces on the blue benches) want the EU to have as much influence and power over us as possible.
Clegg, after all, thinks we'll be a pygmy without the EU.
Bear in mind that Giuliano Amato who drafted Article 50 has admitted that the sole purpose of the Article is to troll the UK (I paraphrase, but only slightly).
"I wrote Article 50, so I know it well," Amato told a conference in Rome, saying he had inserted it specifically to prevent the British from complaining that there was no clear cut, official way for them to bail out of the Union.
"My intention was that it should be a classic safety valve that was there, but never used. It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened."
That's very much not what you said.
I did say I was paraphrasing. And I call that trolling. And the substantive question remains: what prevents an application to ECJ to tell us how our constitution works?
What about big, proud, open, expansive, trade based, internationally engaging nationalism? Your comment seems to suggest anyone who is proud of their country and wishes for it to become a better country but still a country (as opposed to an administrative region of a superstate) is somehow compromised.
Anyone who claims the vote was not won by the message "we hate foreigners" is an idiot.
Like Dan Hannan.
It must be embarrassing, being you. The retwatting is boring as hell, but when you strike out on your own it is immediately obvious why you are happier playing covers.
We want Parliamentary sovereignty and oversight on the Brexit deal, not to frustrate Brexit, but to ensure it is a good Brexit.
And I'd like the moon on a stick, but when we're a) about to negotiate moon-on-a-stick terms with the club we're leaving, b) trying to give the people more power over the moon-on-a-stick than the elites and c) concerned that many MPs, by their own admission, do not want us to get independent sovereign power of the moon-on-a-stick, is it any surprise that the Govt are going to Brexit on their own?
Well, quite. The point of making a show about being content with so-called "hard Brexit" is to negotiate a better deal which isn't as "hard". Legal challenges and Parliamentary attempts to circumscribe our actions only serve to make our position weaker. It's almost as if some people would rather be proved right than get the best outcome.
Clearly Parliament ought to get a say on the eventual deal. And they will, though rejecting it would be very awkward indeed.
Thing is, the two issues which both sides of the Leave camp want - no ECJ interference, less immigration - are incompatible with anything other than hard Brexit no matter the negotiating techniques.
Single Market = ECJ FOM = continued immigration (even with making it more difficult, as per @MaxPB's point about Germany).
The unknown is of course how much the EU27 will cave, but prima facie, there simply cannot be anything other than hard Brexit.
The weight of establishment was on the side of Remain, it was the status quo, and they mustered a number of heavyweights on their side.
All Leave had was Nigel and Boris! For Leave to get to a 52:48 win was a phenomenally good result for them.
Of course the referendum was close. That's not the point. So was Waterloo.
"It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life."
Well, it could have been closer. Could you imagine the coverage if it had been settled by say sub 10k votes? Or if Remain had won purely because of Gibraltar? Lucky it wasn't a tie or I'd owe TSE £5 million.
Parliament has already had its say. The only people who really want Parliament to vote on when May can invoke A50 are those who don't want her to do so at all.
May will have no problem invoking Article 50. There is no meaningful legal case to be made and the Commons certainly isn't going to stop her. The public backlash if it tried would be immense.
There may be a debate on the terms of exit but that's a different process. I think the govt has made a mistake in ruling that out too but if Labour force a debate and a vote - and they can - it still won't change the fact of, or the timetable for, leaving.
"Article 50
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
I assume that the interpretation of the Treaty is a matter for the ECJ. That being so, is there any reason why the disaffected should not apply *to the ECJ* for a ruling on what the constitutional requirements of the UK are, as well as or instead of applying to the court here? That would be fun, and would take years.
Bear in mind that Giuliano Amato who drafted Article 50 has admitted that the sole purpose of the Article is to troll the UK (I paraphrase, but only slightly).
I rather suspect you're the one trolling. But it'd be of no consequence. The rest of the article is clear about the timetable and when membership ceases. The other members would also have a vested interest in ensuring Brexit was clean so as to prevent muddle about whether the UK should be included in any number of EU calculations or not.
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,” he told the Telegraph.
Newspapers influence relatively few people. Their sales have been declining for a generation and their audience penetration has been dropping particularly sharply recently. Their readers appear literally to be dying off.
We want Parliamentary sovereignty and oversight on the Brexit deal, not to frustrate Brexit, but to ensure it is a good Brexit.
And I'd like the moon on a stick, but when we're a) about to negotiate moon-on-a-stick terms with the club we're leaving, b) trying to give the people more power over the moon-on-a-stick than the elites and c) concerned that many MPs, by their own admission, do not want us to get independent sovereign power of the moon-on-a-stick, is it any surprise that the Govt are going to Brexit on their own?
Well, quite. The point of making a show about being content with so-called "hard Brexit" is to negotiate a better deal which isn't as "hard". Legal challenges and Parliamentary attempts to circumscribe our actions only serve to make our position weaker. It's almost as if some people would rather be proved right than get the best outcome.
Clearly Parliament ought to get a say on the eventual deal. And they will, though rejecting it would be very awkward indeed.
Thing is, the two issues which both sides of the Leave camp want - no ECJ interference, less immigration - are incompatible with anything other than hard Brexit no matter the negotiating techniques.
Single Market = ECJ FOM = continued immigration (even with making it more difficult, as per @MaxPB's point about Germany).
The unknown is of course how much the EU27 will cave, but prima facie, there simply cannot be anything other than hard Brexit.
I think there's a distinction to be made between the ECJ as arbiter of the single market (surely necessary) and ECJ as final court and arbiter of the EU acquis (constitutionally problematic for the UK as common law country).
On the FOM thing I do not know how to square the circle. My gut tells me (I have seen no research) that welfare reform would only have a marginal impact.
We do need to, perhaps in the longer term after a transition period, FOM with FTW. I don't think that necessarily means hard Brexit (understanding that these labels are not super helpful).
The problem only started because Samsung were working to Apple's timetable - they wanted their new handset on sale before the competition announced their new product. With hindsight they should have waited and fixed the problem, taken the hit on initial sales.
With foresight, they've done the right thing in killing it dead before it affects the brand more than it has already. Going to be a real mess to sort out through, especially in US and EU markets where the handsets are most commonly sold by service providers with contracts.
My theory has been for a while that May needs to pivot right (toward hard Brexit) to placate the headbangers and to signal to Europe that she means business.
The parliamentary maths and internal party politics seem to dictate it.
Once she has a deal - something along the lines of an EEA deal, she can call an election, win an almighty majority over a demoralised Labour and deflated UKIP, and then ride it out - letting the headbangers froth on the backbenches.
It's a high wire act, but that's what I'd try to do.
Of course it assumes EU leaders would sign up to such a deal. Big assumption.
She has missed a trick by not guaranteeing the rights of resident EU citizens at the outset and declaring that her objective is the closest possible economic relationship with the EU compatible with national sovereignty. Also that while we cannot continue to rely on immigration for growth, we cannot and will not deliver prosperity by closing off from the world.
This would have set the right tone and settled a few nerves in addition.
You might be right. Her current position allows that if we get a decent deal. Which is just another reason for the neo-liberal loudmouths within the party to shush their mouths about Parliament not having a say about triggering Brexit.
That said, the nerves of social snowflakes are not within the remit of Govt. I care not a jot for the Remainian headbangers (Soubry et all) wringing their hands over our proud assertion of sovereignty.
Bear in mind that Giuliano Amato who drafted Article 50 has admitted that the sole purpose of the Article is to troll the UK (I paraphrase, but only slightly).
"I wrote Article 50, so I know it well," Amato told a conference in Rome, saying he had inserted it specifically to prevent the British from complaining that there was no clear cut, official way for them to bail out of the Union.
"My intention was that it should be a classic safety valve that was there, but never used. It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened."
That's very much not what you said.
I did say I was paraphrasing. And I call that trolling. And the substantive question remains: what prevents an application to ECJ to tell us how our constitution works?
I don't think trolling means what you think it means.
If only some us had warned about this, oh wait we did
@faisalislam: Sense in City/business is Government not prioritising financial passport that underpinned their EU HQ activity- starting to act accordingly
If people who want financial passporting were arguing for it rather than trying to overturn the British people's democratic decision...
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,” he told the Telegraph.
Exactly the Remain view (mine at least) of the consequences of Brexit. Not a disaster, but a barely discernible economic forfeit and an equally imperceptible diminution in wealth. All for the gain of some nebulous concept of sovereignty that we retained all the while when we were members.
Mr. B2, a Corsican pig farmer was no match for a British footwear designer.
As an aside, Napoleon's dinky stature is an early triumph of British newspapers. Cartoonists portrayed him as a midget, whereas he was of a perfectly average height. But everyone still thinks he was a pygmy.
My theory has been for a while that May needs to pivot right (toward hard Brexit) to placate the headbangers and to signal to Europe that she means business.
The parliamentary maths and internal party politics seem to dictate it.
Once she has a deal - something along the lines of an EEA deal, she can call an election, win an almighty majority over a demoralised Labour and deflated UKIP, and then ride it out - letting the headbangers froth on the backbenches.
It's a high wire act, but that's what I'd try to do.
Of course it assumes EU leaders would sign up to such a deal. Big assumption.
She has missed a trick by not guaranteeing the rights of resident EU citizens at the outset and declaring that her objective is the closest possible economic relationship with the EU compatible with national sovereignty. Also that while we cannot continue to rely on immigration for growth, we cannot and will not deliver prosperity by closing off from the world.
This would have set the right tone and settled a few nerves in addition.
You might be right. Her current position allows that if we get a decent deal. Which is just another reason for the neo-liberal loudmouths within the party to shush their mouths about Parliament not having a say about triggering Brexit.
That said, the nerves of social snowflakes are not within the remit of Govt. I care not a jot for the Remainian headbangers (Soubry et all) wringing their hands over our proud assertion of sovereignty.
I am probably one of your Remainian headbangers, but the current call to refer Brexit to vote doesn't make sense to me. What exactly would parliament be voting on?
May needs to get on with it.
I would however like to see the final deal sanctified by parliament. If doubt it would fail unless it really was the self-harming hard Brexit of my fears.
What about big, proud, open, expansive, trade based, internationally engaging nationalism? Your comment seems to suggest anyone who is proud of their country and wishes for it to become a better country but still a country (as opposed to an administrative region of a superstate) is somehow compromised.
Anyone who claims the vote was not won by the message "we hate foreigners" is an idiot.
Like Dan Hannan.
Oh you're dead right that that was the deciding factor - ruthlessly exploited by those who were fighting for the same result but different reasons. The 'freedom' vote has been surpressed by the establishment for 40 years. Vote Leave took their chance. I crawled across broken glass to vote leave. But would be entirely happy with a soft Brexit. All my relatives who voted remain did so despite their intrinsic dislike and distrust of the EU because they were persuaded by Project Fear. All have since told me they'd vote leave if it was rerun today.
I would however somewhat dispute your choice of the word 'hate'. I think 'resent' is better. It's not a 'yuk Romanian untermensch' view so much as a 'why am I at the back of the housing, school places, GP slots, jobs queue with all these Romanians in town' view. For some that morphs into hate. But not for most.
Well said. Dan Hannan may be many things, but an idiot he most certainly isn't.
He also had the genius line of vote to give me, a politician with a big salary and expense account, a P45. I can't ever recall that line from anyone else before!
By the way, did you ever publish your "Patrick Party" manifesto anywhere?
We want Parliamentary sovereignty and oversight on the Brexit deal, not to frustrate Brexit, but to ensure it is a good Brexit.
And I'd like the moon on a stick, but when we're a) about to negotiate moon-on-a-stick terms with the club we're leaving, b) trying to give the people more power over the moon-on-a-stick than the elites and c) concerned that many MPs, by their own admission, do not want us to get independent sovereign power of the moon-on-a-stick, is it any surprise that the Govt are going to Brexit on their own?
Well, quite. The point of making a show about being content with so-called "hard Brexit" is to negotiate a better deal which isn't as "hard". Legal challenges and Parliamentary attempts to circumscribe our actions only serve to make our position weaker. It's almost as if some people would rather be proved right than get the best outcome.
Clearly Parliament ought to get a say on the eventual deal. And they will, though rejecting it would be very awkward indeed.
Thing is, the two issues which both sides of the Leave camp want - no ECJ interference, less immigration - are incompatible with anything other than hard Brexit no matter the negotiating techniques.
Single Market = ECJ FOM = continued immigration (even with making it more difficult, as per @MaxPB's point about Germany).
The unknown is of course how much the EU27 will cave, but prima facie, there simply cannot be anything other than hard Brexit.
I think there's a distinction to be made between the ECJ as arbiter of the single market (surely necessary) and ECJ as final court and arbiter of the EU acquis (constitutionally problematic for the UK as common law country).
On the FOM thing I do not know how to square the circle. My gut tells me (I have seen no research) that welfare reform would only have a marginal impact.
We do need to, perhaps in the longer term after a transition period, FOM with FTW. I don't think that necessarily means hard Brexit (understanding that these labels are not super helpful).
Yes that (ECJ) is an important distinction. I fear however that the nuances of the two roles might be lost in the battles ahead. And the former role would still be opining on bananas.
I'm still surprised we voted to Leave given how lopsided the two sides were.
Imagine if a Eurosceptic Dave had genuinely tried for a couple of years to get a reformed EU, realised it'd be easier to squeeze blood from a stone, said 'sod it', and campaigned vigorously with all the weight of the establishment marshalled behind him for a Leave vote - in a naturally deeply Eurosceptic country. He'd have won for Leave by a country mile and would today be unassailable - a hero for his party and a big winner in UK political history. Given that he went against his party and his country I think a 48% result was pretty damn solid for Remain.
The weight of establishment was on the side of Remain, it was the status quo, and they mustered a number of heavyweights on their side.
All Leave had was Nigel and Boris! For Leave to get to a 52:48 win was a phenomenally good result for them.
Of course the referendum was close. That's not the point. So was Waterloo.
"It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life."
Well, it could have been closer. Could you imagine the coverage if it had been settled by say sub 10k votes? Or if Remain had won purely because of Gibraltar? Lucky it wasn't a tie or I'd owe TSE £5 million.
Bear in mind that Giuliano Amato who drafted Article 50 has admitted that the sole purpose of the Article is to troll the UK (I paraphrase, but only slightly).
"I wrote Article 50, so I know it well," Amato told a conference in Rome, saying he had inserted it specifically to prevent the British from complaining that there was no clear cut, official way for them to bail out of the Union.
"My intention was that it should be a classic safety valve that was there, but never used. It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened."
That's very much not what you said.
I did say I was paraphrasing. And I call that trolling. And the substantive question remains: what prevents an application to ECJ to tell us how our constitution works?
I don't think trolling means what you think it means.
I'm still surprised we voted to Leave given how lopsided the two sides were.
Imagine if a Eurosceptic Dave had genuinely tried for a couple of years to get a reformed EU, realised it'd be easier to squeeze blood from a stone, said 'sod it', and campaigned vigorously with all the weight of the establishment marshalled behind him for a Leave vote - in a naturally deeply Eurosceptic country. He'd have won for Leave by a country mile. Given that he went against his party and his country I think a 48% result was pretty damn solid for Remain.
"If Dave had backed LEAVE, he would still be an MP and our PM" - discuss.
I'm still surprised we voted to Leave given how lopsided the two sides were.
Imagine if a Eurosceptic Dave had genuinely tried for a couple of years to get a reformed EU, realised it'd be easier to squeeze blood from a stone, said 'sod it', and campaigned vigorously with all the weight of the establishment marshalled behind him for a Leave vote - in a naturally deeply Eurosceptic country. He'd have won for Leave by a country mile. Given that he went against his party and his country I think a 48% result was pretty damn solid for Remain.
"If Dave had backed LEAVE, he would still be an MP and our PM" - discuss.
My theory has been for a while that May needs to pivot right (toward hard Brexit) to placate the headbangers and to signal to Europe that she means business.
The parliamentary maths and internal party politics seem to dictate it.
Once she has a deal - something along the lines of an EEA deal, she can call an election, win an almighty majority over a demoralised Labour and deflated UKIP, and then ride it out - letting the headbangers froth on the backbenches.
It's a high wire act, but that's what I'd try to do.
Of course it assumes EU leaders would sign up to such a deal. Big assumption.
She has missed a trick by not guaranteeing the rights of resident EU citizens at the outset and declaring that her objective is the closest possible economic relationship with the EU compatible with national sovereignty. Also that while we cannot continue to rely on immigration for growth, we cannot and will not deliver prosperity by closing off from the world.
This would have set the right tone and settled a few nerves in addition.
You might be right. Her current position allows that if we get a decent deal. Which is just another reason for the neo-liberal loudmouths within the party to shush their mouths about Parliament not having a say about triggering Brexit.
That said, the nerves of social snowflakes are not within the remit of Govt. I care not a jot for the Remainian headbangers (Soubry et all) wringing their hands over our proud assertion of sovereignty.
She is no fool. She realises the populist discontent atm and also that it has sod all to do with the EU. Well, in such a situation the only option is to increase the size and reach of the State because what you get if you leave it to the market is pesky low-paid workers lowering the market rate for wages and such like.
Anti-elite sentiment is simply a rage against the developing world developing and hence impinging upon our living standards. Those at the bottom are hit hardest.
Quite how you address this I'm not 100% sure but bigger government is I suppose one way of attempting it.
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,” he told the Telegraph.
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,” he told the Telegraph.
What about big, proud, open, expansive, trade based, internationally engaging nationalism? Your comment seems to suggest anyone who is proud of their country and wishes for it to become a better country but still a country (as opposed to an administrative region of a superstate) is somehow compromised.
Anyone who claims the vote was not won by the message "we hate foreigners" is an idiot.
Like Dan Hannan.
Oh you're dead right that that was the deciding factor - ruthlessly exploited by those who were fighting for the same result but different reasons. The 'freedom' vote has been surpressed by the establishment for 40 years. Vote Leave took their chance. I crawled across broken glass to vote leave. But would be entirely happy with a soft Brexit. All my relatives who voted remain did so despite their intrinsic dislike and distrust of the EU because they were persuaded by Project Fear. All have since told me they'd vote leave if it was rerun today.
I would however somewhat dispute your choice of the word 'hate'. I think 'resent' is better. It's not a 'yuk Romanian untermensch' view so much as a 'why am I at the back of the housing, school places, GP slots, jobs queue with all these Romanians in town' view. For some that morphs into hate. But not for most.
Untermensch?
Is that a racist term for eastern Europeans or a description of discussing the Constitution of Uganda with a prolific tweeter?
We want Parliamentary sovereignty and oversight on the Brexit deal, not to frustrate Brexit, but to ensure it is a good Brexit.
And I'd like the moon on a stick, but when we're a) about to negotiate moon-on-a-stick terms with the club we're leaving, b) trying to give the people more power over the moon-on-a-stick than the elites and c) concerned that many MPs, by their own admission, do not want us to get independent sovereign power of the moon-on-a-stick, is it any surprise that the Govt are going to Brexit on their own?
Well, quite. The point of making a show about being content with so-called "hard Brexit" is to negotiate a better deal which isn't as "hard". Legal challenges and Parliamentary attempts to circumscribe our actions only serve to make our position weaker. It's almost as if some people would rather be proved right than get the best outcome.
Clearly Parliament ought to get a say on the eventual deal. And they will, though rejecting it would be very awkward indeed.
Thing is, the two issues which both sides of the Leave camp want - no ECJ interference, less immigration - are incompatible with anything other than hard Brexit no matter the negotiating techniques.
Single Market = ECJ FOM = continued immigration (even with making it more difficult, as per @MaxPB's point about Germany).
The unknown is of course how much the EU27 will cave, but prima facie, there simply cannot be anything other than hard Brexit.
Perhaps those who support a soft brexit should be rooting for Sarkozy to win the next elections in France - he has moved to the eurosceptic right and is stoking up anti-immigrant sentiment while not actually wanting to leave the EU, he's mentions offering new deals to the UK, he may end up being something of an ally in trying to get a more flexible offer and reducing the idea of FoM.
I'm not sure if there is anyone 'better' we could hope for in Germany than Merkel though?
Mr. B2, a Corsican pig farmer was no match for a British footwear designer.
As an aside, Napoleon's dinky stature is an early triumph of British newspapers. Cartoonists portrayed him as a midget, whereas he was of a perfectly average height. But everyone still thinks he was a pygmy.
I never knew that about Napoleon, had assumed he was 5'2" from reports. PB lesson of the day.
"Got that? "Everyone is wrong here" and "Both candidates were wrong," because Trump called Obama's "Red Line" a "line in the sand." Find me a functional difference between those two terms and you may have a point. Otherwise, our fact-checkers have turned into semantic nit-pickers.
...
Besides these two, NBC posted a few other factchecks on Twitter that night. Trump on Russian hacks, Trump on Hillary's representation of an accused rapist, Trump on his Iraq War position, Trump on "Check out sex tape," Trump on San Bernardino shooters. Notice a pattern?
Every single fact check posted on Twitter by NBC on debate night was of a Trump statement they deemed false or misleading. Of course, this tells us more about NBC's fact checkers than it does about the relative veracity of Trump or Clinton. There were plenty of errors to catch Clinton in, but they didn't rise to tweetable fact checks Sunday night.
Lots of journalists, including myself, worry about what happens when the public broadly loses faith in the media...
We want Parliamentary sovereignty and oversight on the Brexit deal, not to frustrate Brexit, but to ensure it is a good Brexit.
And I'd like the moon on a stick, but when we're a) about to negotiate moon-on-a-stick terms with the club we're leaving, b) trying to give the people more power over the moon-on-a-stick than the elites and c) concerned that many MPs, by their own admission, do not want us to get independent sovereign power of the moon-on-a-stick, is it any surprise that the Govt are going to Brexit on their own?
Well, quite. The point of making a show about being content with so-called "hard Brexit" is to negotiate a better deal which isn't as "hard". Legal challenges and Parliamentary attempts to circumscribe our actions only serve to make our position weaker. It's almost as if some people would rather be proved right than get the best outcome.
Clearly Parliament ought to get a say on the eventual deal. And they will, though rejecting it would be very awkward indeed.
Thing is, the two issues which both sides of the Leave camp want - no ECJ interference, less immigration - are incompatible with anything other than hard Brexit no matter the negotiating techniques.
Single Market = ECJ FOM = continued immigration (even with making it more difficult, as per @MaxPB's point about Germany).
The unknown is of course how much the EU27 will cave, but prima facie, there simply cannot be anything other than hard Brexit.
I think there's a distinction to be made between the ECJ as arbiter of the single market (surely necessary) and ECJ as final court and arbiter of the EU acquis (constitutionally problematic for the UK as common law country).
On the FOM thing I do not know how to square the circle. My gut tells me (I have seen no research) that welfare reform would only have a marginal impact.
We do need to, perhaps in the longer term after a transition period, FOM with FTW. I don't think that necessarily means hard Brexit (understanding that these labels are not super helpful).
Yes that (ECJ) is an important distinction. I fear however that the nuances of the two roles might be lost in the battles ahead. And the former role would still be opining on bananas.
Point of order, EEA members are bound by the EFTA court, not the ECJ. Only on single market rules as well so a much lower chance of judicial activism.
The weight of establishment was on the side of Remain, it was the status quo, and they mustered a number of heavyweights on their side.
All Leave had was Nigel and Boris! For Leave to get to a 52:48 win was a phenomenally good result for them.
Of course the referendum was close. That's not the point. So was Waterloo.
"It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life."
Well, it could have been closer. Could you imagine the coverage if it had been settled by say sub 10k votes? Or if Remain had won purely because of Gibraltar? Lucky it wasn't a tie or I'd owe TSE £5 million.
LOL! Your £5m was very safe. As you well know.
Well that's an interesting metaphysical question. Can something that doesn't exist be safe?
My theory has been for a while that May needs to pivot right (toward hard Brexit) to placate the headbangers and to signal to Europe that she means business.
The parliamentary maths and internal party politics seem to dictate it.
Once she has a deal - something along the lines of an EEA deal, she can call an election, win an almighty majority over a demoralised Labour and deflated UKIP, and then ride it out - letting the headbangers froth on the backbenches.
It's a high wire act, but that's what I'd try to do.
Of course it assumes EU leaders would sign up to such a deal. Big assumption.
She has missed a trick by not guaranteeing the rights of resident EU citizens at the outset and declaring that her objective is the closest possible economic relationship with the EU compatible with national sovereignty. Also that while we cannot continue to rely on immigration for growth, we cannot and will not deliver prosperity by closing off from the world.
This would have set the right tone and settled a few nerves in addition.
You might be right. Her current position allows that if we get a decent deal. Which is just another reason for the neo-liberal loudmouths within the party to shush their mouths about Parliament not having a say about triggering Brexit.
That said, the nerves of social snowflakes are not within the remit of Govt. I care not a jot for the Remainian headbangers (Soubry et all) wringing their hands over our proud assertion of sovereignty.
I am probably one of your Remainian headbangers, but the current call to refer Brexit to vote doesn't make sense to me. What exactly would parliament be voting on?
May needs to get on with it.
I would however like to see the final deal sanctified by parliament. If doubt it would fail unless it really was the self-harming hard Brexit of my fears.
Yes but there would be plenty of self-harming if the party you oppose (for me that would be Labour) ends up in government. Suppose the Conservative government gives us a hard Brexit, there is nothing to stop another party campaigning for a soft one at the next GE.
We want Parliamentary sovereignty and oversight on the Brexit deal, not to frustrate Brexit, but to ensure it is a good Brexit.
And I'd like the moon on a stick, but when we're a) about to negotiate moon-on-a-stick terms with the club we're leaving, b) trying to give the people more power over the moon-on-a-stick than the elites and c) concerned that many MPs, by their own admission, do not want us to get independent sovereign power of the moon-on-a-stick, is it any surprise that the Govt are going to Brexit on their own?
Well, quite. The point of making a show about being content with so-called "hard Brexit" is to negotiate a better deal which isn't as "hard". Legal challenges and Parliamentary attempts to circumscribe our actions only serve to make our position weaker. It's almost as if some people would rather be proved right than get the best outcome.
Clearly Parliament ought to get a say on the eventual deal. And they will, though rejecting it would be very awkward indeed.
Thing is, the two issues which both sides of the Leave camp want - no ECJ interference, less immigration - are incompatible with anything other than hard Brexit no matter the negotiating techniques.
Single Market = ECJ FOM = continued immigration (even with making it more difficult, as per @MaxPB's point about Germany).
The unknown is of course how much the EU27 will cave, but prima facie, there simply cannot be anything other than hard Brexit.
Perhaps those who support a soft brexit should be rooting for Sarkozy to win the next elections in France - he has moved to the eurosceptic right and is stoking up anti-immigrant sentiment while not actually wanting to leave the EU, he's mentions offering new deals to the UK, he may end up being something of an ally in trying to get a more flexible offer and reducing the idea of FoM.
I'm not sure if there is anyone 'better' we could hope for in Germany than Merkel though?
Yes, I am.
While some remainers are still in shock, I recognise there is no way back.
The only patriotic thing to me it seems is to argue for a soft Brexit and to support those in the EU who want or could enable the same.
That needs to be balanced with the risk of a nativist and nationalist France on our doorstep but as little as I like Sarkozy, he is no Trump or Le Pen. I am rooting for him.
My theory has been for a while that May needs to pivot right (toward hard Brexit) to placate the headbangers and to signal to Europe that she means business.
The parliamentary maths and internal party politics seem to dictate it.
Once she has a deal - something along the lines of an EEA deal, she can call an election, win an almighty majority over a demoralised Labour and deflated UKIP, and then ride it out - letting the headbangers froth on the backbenches.
It's a high wire act, but that's what I'd try to do.
Of course it assumes EU leaders would sign up to such a deal. Big assumption.
She has missed a trick by not guaranteeing the rights of resident EU citizens at the outset and declaring that her objective is the closest possible economic relationship with the EU compatible with national sovereignty. Also that while we cannot continue to rely on immigration for growth, we cannot and will not deliver prosperity by closing off from the world.
This would have set the right tone and settled a few nerves in addition.
You might be right. Her current position allows that if we get a decent deal. Which is just another reason for the neo-liberal loudmouths within the party to shush their mouths about Parliament not having a say about triggering Brexit.
That said, the nerves of social snowflakes are not within the remit of Govt. I care not a jot for the Remainian headbangers (Soubry et all) wringing their hands over our proud assertion of sovereignty.
I am probably one of your Remainian headbangers, but the current call to refer Brexit to vote doesn't make sense to me. What exactly would parliament be voting on?
May needs to get on with it.
I would however like to see the final deal sanctified by parliament. If doubt it would fail unless it really was the self-harming hard Brexit of my fears.
No you are making constructive suggestions not just wailing about the result, the resulting stockmarket collapse or the fall in the pound etc. Headbanger status refused.
The weight of establishment was on the side of Remain, it was the status quo, and they mustered a number of heavyweights on their side.
All Leave had was Nigel and Boris! For Leave to get to a 52:48 win was a phenomenally good result for them.
Of course the referendum was close. That's not the point. So was Waterloo.
"It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life."
Yes, the squares had to hold against Ney's massive charge and the line against the final advance of the Imperial Guard.
Had squares or the line given way, we surely wouldn't need to be having all this never-ending referendum fallout two hundred years later...
You could also add, had the Prussians not arrived.
But it doesn't matter: Napoleon was doomed either way.
Wellington believed that had his line broken, he could have retreated in order to defensible wooded ground and held out no matter what. Napoleon would have won the battle but Wellington would still have had an army in being (as Blucher crucially did after Ligny). Meanwhile, the Austrians and Russians were on the march with half a million men under arms.
The crucial fact about Waterloo was not that Napoleon lost. Sooner or later, numbers made that inevitable. The crucial fact was that Britain won. That made a great deal of difference in Britain's influence in the diplomatic game of the future of Europe post-1815.
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,” he told the Telegraph.
Try not noticing that the cost of your g and t on holiday in Europe has gone up 30pc...
With apols. to Tina Turner and Mad Max fans:
Looking for something We can rely on There's gotta be something better out there Love and compassion Their day is coming All else are castles built in the air And I wonder when we are ever gonna change Living under the fear till nothing else remains
All the children say We don't need another Euro We don't need to know the way home All we want is life beyond Eurozone
Mr. B2, a Corsican pig farmer was no match for a British footwear designer.
As an aside, Napoleon's dinky stature is an early triumph of British newspapers. Cartoonists portrayed him as a midget, whereas he was of a perfectly average height. But everyone still thinks he was a pygmy.
I never knew that about Napoleon, had assumed he was 5'2" from reports. PB lesson of the day.
5'7". Added bonus is the discovery that he said "In politics stupidity is not a handicap." Or so it is always translated - the original seems to be "En politique, une absurdité n'est pas un obstacle."
Mr. B2, a Corsican pig farmer was no match for a British footwear designer.
As an aside, Napoleon's dinky stature is an early triumph of British newspapers. Cartoonists portrayed him as a midget, whereas he was of a perfectly average height. But everyone still thinks he was a pygmy.
I never knew that about Napoleon, had assumed he was 5'2" from reports. PB lesson of the day.
We want Parliamentary sovereignty and oversight on the Brexit deal, not to frustrate Brexit, but to ensure it is a good Brexit.
And I'd like the moon on a stick, but when we're a) about to negotiate moon-on-a-stick terms with the club we're leaving, b) trying to give the people more power over the moon-on-a-stick than the elites and c) concerned that many MPs, by their own admission, do not want us to get independent sovereign power of the moon-on-a-stick, is it any surprise that the Govt are going to Brexit on their own?
Well, quite. The point of making a show about being content with so-called "hard Brexit" is to negot.
Clearly Parliament ought to get a say on the eventual deal. And they will, though rejecting it would be very awkward indeed.
Thing is, the two issues which both sides of the Leave camp want - no ECJ interference, less immigration - are incompatible with anything other than hard Brexit no matter the negotiating techniques.
Single Market = ECJ FOM = continued immigration (even with making it more difficult, as per @MaxPB's point about Germany).
The unknown is of course how much the EU27 will cave, but prima facie, there simply cannot be anything other than hard Brexit.
I think there's a distinction to be made between the ECJ as arbiter of the single market (surely necessary) and ECJ as final court and arbiter of the EU acquis (constitutionally problematic for the UK as common law country).
On the FOM thing I do not know how to square the circle. My gut tells me (I have seen no research) that welfare reform would only have a marginal impact.
We do need to, perhaps in the longer term after a transition period, FOM with FTW. I don't think that necessarily means hard Brexit (understanding that these labels are not super helpful).
Yes that (ECJ) is an important distinction. I fear however that the nuances of the two roles might be lost in the battles ahead. And the former role would still be opining on bananas.
Point of order, EEA members are bound by the EFTA court, not the ECJ. Only on single market rules as well so a much lower chance of judicial activism.
Single Market rules will touch most people (and be amplified by the Daily Mail). Plus I'm not sure how well the don't worry we'll only be bound by the EFTA court, not the ECJ will go down in Leaverstan.
The weight of establishment was on the side of Remain, it was the status quo, and they mustered a number of heavyweights on their side.
All Leave had was Nigel and Boris! For Leave to get to a 52:48 win was a phenomenally good result for them.
Of course the referendum was close. That's not the point. So was Waterloo.
"It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life."
Yes, the squares had to hold against Ney's massive charge and the line against the final advance of the Imperial Guard.
Had squares or the line given way, we surely wouldn't need to be having all this never-ending referendum fallout two hundred years later...
You could also add, had the Prussians not arrived.
But it doesn't matter: Napoleon was doomed either way.
Wellington believed that had his line broken, he could have retreated in order to defensible wooded ground and held out no matter what. Napoleon would have won the battle but Wellington would still have had an army in being (as Blucher crucially did after Ligny). Meanwhile, the Austrians and Russians were on the march with half a million men under arms.
The crucial fact about Waterloo was not that Napoleon lost. Sooner or later, numbers made that inevitable. The crucial fact was that Britain won. That made a great deal of difference in Britain's influence in the diplomatic game of the future of Europe post-1815.
Yes, you are right, he was staving off the inevitable - although I guess there was a small chance that a decisive French win might have led to divisions within the coalition. Or that he too could have withdrawn and regrouped.
Despite the myths we grew up on, our army wasn't in any meaningful sense actually very British!
Lots of pro Israel, anti Muslim, anti immigrant/migrant stuff with a seasoning of watery Trump exoneration.
Female as well like Ms Plato.
Hilary has a problem that a good few women are unreasonably indulgent with errant alpha males but really harsh on members of the sisterhood who let the side down.
I suspect though few will admit to it to anyone other than the ballot box though.
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,” he told the Telegraph.
Try not noticing that the cost of your g and t on holiday in Europe has gone up 30pc...
With apols. to Tina Turner and Mad Max fans:
Looking for something We can rely on There's gotta be something better out there Love and compassion Their day is coming All else are castles built in the air And I wonder when we are ever gonna change Living under the fear till nothing else remains
All the children say We don't need another Euro We don't need to know the way home All we want is life beyond Eurozone
In my experience people who post poetry in here (or indeed anywhere on the Internet, or who send it to their local newspaper) are generally unhinged in some way.
Lots of pro Israel, anti Muslim, anti immigrant/migrant stuff with a seasoning of watery Trump exoneration.
Female as well like Ms Plato.
Hilary has a problem that a good few women are unreasonably indulgent with errant alpha males but really harsh on members of the sisterhood who let the side down.
I suspect though few will admit to it to anyone other than the ballot box though.
I liked Roseanne. Working class female comedian who got successful when it was *much* tougher than today.
I am saddened to see that an understandable hatred of Hillary may have mutated into a pro-Trump stand.
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,” he told the Telegraph.
Try not noticing that the cost of your g and t on holiday in Europe has gone up 30pc...
With apols. to Tina Turner and Mad Max fans:
Looking for something We can rely on There's gotta be something better out there Love and compassion Their day is coming All else are castles built in the air And I wonder when we are ever gonna change Living under the fear till nothing else remains
All the children say We don't need another Euro We don't need to know the way home All we want is life beyond Eurozone
In my experience people who post poetry in here (or indeed anywhere on the Internet, or who send it to their local newspaper) are generally unhinged in some way.
What is with all the 'remoaner' stuff now? It seems that the majority of people have accepted the idea of brexit and are just arguing we shouldn't sacrifice the single market for immigration controls. Almost no-one, since Owen Smith lost, is saying we should ignore the result. Even the Lib Dems are arguing on re-joining the EU.
Parliament wouldn't ignore the referendum result, but it would vote against leaving the single market, because there has been absolutely zero official consultation with the public on that particular issue. As well it should.
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
It doesn't mention the single market or border controls in that question. How does anyone actually know what the public want, beyond a couple of oh-so reliable opinion polls? Lots of people 'knew' that we would vote to stay in the EU after all.
Arguing for soft brexit doesn't connect in any way to being a "remoaner", at least it doesn't until there is some sort of public consultation on whether the majority of the country want to leave the single market.
Newspapers influence relatively few people. Their sales have been declining for a generation and their audience penetration has been dropping particularly sharply recently. Their readers appear literally to be dying off.
Newspapers have always reflected their readers' opinions far more than influencing them.
We want Parliamentary sovereignty and oversight on the Brexit deal, not to frustrate Brexit, but to ensure it is a good Brexit.
Well, quite. The point of making a show about being content with so-called "hard Brexit" is to negot.
Clearly Parliament ought to get a say on the eventual deal. And they will, though rejecting it would be very awkward indeed.
Thing is, the two issues which both sides of the Leave camp want - no ECJ interference, less immigration - are incompatible with anything other than hard Brexit no matter the negotiating techniques.
Single Market = ECJ FOM = continued immigration (even with making it more difficult, as per @MaxPB's point about Germany).
The unknown is of course how much the EU27 will cave, but prima facie, there simply cannot be anything other than hard Brexit.
I think there's a distinction to be made between the ECJ as arbiter of the single market (surely necessary) and ECJ as final court and arbiter of the EU acquis (constitutionally problematic for the UK as common law country).
On the FOM thing I do not know how to square the circle. My gut tells me (I have seen no research) that welfare reform would only have a marginal impact.
We do need to, perhaps in the longer term after a transition period, FOM with FTW. I don't think that necessarily means hard Brexit (understanding that these labels are not super helpful).
Yes that (ECJ) is an important distinction. I fear however that the nuances of the two roles might be lost in the battles ahead. And the former role would still be opining on bananas.
Point of order, EEA members are bound by the EFTA court, not the ECJ. Only on single market rules as well so a much lower chance of judicial activism.
Single Market rules will touch most people (and be amplified by the Daily Mail). Plus I'm not sure how well the don't worry we'll only be bound by the EFTA court, not the ECJ will go down in Leaverstan.
I actually think that most Leavers have moved on. They want it done, but are unlikely to pick at the precise details.
Leaverstan was a coalition of all sorts, including the conservative middle classes. It could not have won otherwise. In general, they are not obscurantists. That's what I pray, anyway.
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,” he told the Telegraph.
Try not noticing that the cost of your g and t on holiday in Europe has gone up 30pc...
With apols. to Tina Turner and Mad Max fans:
Looking for something We can rely on There's gotta be something better out there Love and compassion Their day is coming All else are castles built in the air And I wonder when we are ever gonna change Living under the fear till nothing else remains
All the children say We don't need another Euro We don't need to know the way home All we want is life beyond Eurozone
Boiled down, Hillary’s case amounts to: vote for me because Trump said something derogatory to a former Miss Universe in the 1990s. Is that the best she can come up with? Given Hillary’s feminism and identity politics, it wouldn’t take a clairvoyant to know that she would push the sexism card...
Moreover, for Clinton herself, it’s a problematic line of attack: she likes to espouse the ‘believe all victims’ mantra of the new feminists, yet for decades she has smeared her husband’s accusers...
Challenged to defend her Wikileaks-revealed comments to Goldman Sachs about having a public and private persona, Clinton tried to claim she was referencing Abraham Lincoln. Trump counterpunched with his best line of the evening: ‘She lied, and now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln.’ In another telling moment, as Clinton argued that she could bring the country together, Trump reminded us that Hillary views a huge swathe of the population as ‘deplorable’ and ‘irredeemable’. Again, a very effective use of turning Clinton’s own weakness – her elitism – against her.
Boiled down, Trump's argument seem to be 'vote for me because I'm a genius, and everyone else, including the rest of the Republican party, are idiots'.
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,” he told the Telegraph.
Exactly the Remain view (mine at least) of the consequences of Brexit. Not a disaster, but a barely discernible economic forfeit and an equally imperceptible diminution in wealth. All for the gain of some nebulous concept of sovereignty that we retained all the while when we were members.
I don't see getting out of a political Project that we never actually wanted to be part of as "nebulous".
My theory has been for a while that May needs to pivot right (toward hard Brexit) to placate the headbangers and to signal to Europe that she means business.
The parliamentary maths and internal party politics seem to dictate it.
Once she has a deal - something along the lines of an EEA deal, she can call an election, win an almighty majority over a demoralised Labour and deflated UKIP, and then ride it out - letting the headbangers froth on the backbenches.
It's a high wire act, but that's what I'd try to do.
Of course it assumes EU leaders would sign up to such a deal. Big assumption.
She has missed a trick by not guaranteeing the rights of resident EU citizens at the outset and declaring that her objective is the closest possible economic relationship with the EU compatible with national sovereignty. Also that while we cannot continue to rely on immigration for growth, we cannot and will not deliver prosperity by closing off from the world.
This would have set the right tone and settled a few nerves in addition.
You might be right. Her current position allows that if we get a decent deal. Which is just another reason for the neo-liberal loudmouths within the party to shush their mouths about Parliament not having a say about triggering Brexit.
That said, the nerves of social snowflakes are not within the remit of Govt. I care not a jot for the Remainian headbangers (Soubry et all) wringing their hands over our proud assertion of sovereignty.
I am probably one of your Remainian headbangers, but the current call to refer Brexit to vote doesn't make sense to me. What exactly would parliament be voting on?
May needs to get on with it.
I would however like to see the final deal sanctified by parliament. If doubt it would fail unless it really was the self-harming hard Brexit of my fears.
The final deal has to be ratified by Parliament. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, do they?
Um, it's been around since the Referendum result, no?
Yes but it seems to have morphed from describing those who literally moaned and complained about the result, to be applied to those who argue parliament should have a say on the type of brexit we have. It's changed definition.
My theory has been for a while that May needs to pivot right (toward hard Brexit) to placate the headbangers and to signal to Europe that she means business.
The parliamentary maths and internal party politics seem to dictate it.
Once she has a deal - something along the lines of an EEA deal, she can call an election, win an almighty majority over a demoralised Labour and deflated UKIP, and then ride it out - letting the headbangers froth on the backbenches.
It's a high wire act, but that's what I'd try to do.
Of course it assumes EU leaders would sign up to such a deal. Big assumption.
She has missed a trick by not guaranteeing the rights of resident EU citizens at the outset and declaring that her objective is the closest possible economic relationship with the EU compatible with national sovereignty. Also that while we cannot continue to rely on immigration for growth, we cannot and will not deliver prosperity by closing off from the world.
This would have set the right tone and settled a few nerves in addition.
You might be right. Her current position allows that if we get a decent deal. Which is just another reason for the neo-liberal loudmouths within the party to shush their mouths about Parliament not having a say about triggering Brexit.
That said, the nerves of social snowflakes are not within the remit of Govt. I care not a jot for the Remainian headbangers (Soubry et all) wringing their hands over our proud assertion of sovereignty.
I am probably one of your Remainian headbangers, but the current call to refer Brexit to vote doesn't make sense to me. What exactly would parliament be voting on?
May needs to get on with it.
I would however like to see the final deal sanctified by parliament. If doubt it would fail unless it really was the self-harming hard Brexit of my fears.
Not at all Mr Walker.
The headbangers want to frustrate at every turn. They are willing a bad deal on the country through wailing and gnashing their ineffective gums.
And they need to be slapped down. This, the weakest argument in their canon, can be countered by putting some stick about within the party. This can be doing by suggesting party unity is what kelps them in a job. In more ways than one. Deselection, danger of electoral defeat and withdrawing the whip are the tools for the job.
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,” he told the Telegraph.
Try not noticing that the cost of your g and t on holiday in Europe has gone up 30pc...
With apols. to Tina Turner and Mad Max fans:
Looking for something We can rely on There's gotta be something better out there Love and compassion Their day is coming All else are castles built in the air And I wonder when we are ever gonna change Living under the fear till nothing else remains
All the children say We don't need another Euro We don't need to know the way home All we want is life beyond Eurozone
Gove and compassion Their day is coming
surely?
What is Gove? Baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me No more
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
It doesn't mention the single market or border controls in that question. How does anyone actually know what the public want, beyond a couple of oh-so reliable opinion polls?
@faisalislam: Bernard Jenkin: "Vote leave campaign made it very clear that we were leaving the Single Market" cites Gove interview on Marr.
Um, it's been around since the Referendum result, no?
Yes but it seems to have morphed from describing those who literally moaned and complained about the result, to be applied to those who argue parliament should have a say on the type of brexit we have. It's changed definition.
@Morris_Dancer Dark days indeed when a monarch goes yachtless. We can all look forward to the day that the next iteration of Britannia is launched when the Queen will once again have a yacht to christen.
Lots of pro Israel, anti Muslim, anti immigrant/migrant stuff with a seasoning of watery Trump exoneration.
Female as well like Ms Plato.
Hilary has a problem that a good few women are unreasonably indulgent with errant alpha males but really harsh on members of the sisterhood who let the side down.
I suspect though few will admit to it to anyone other than the ballot box though.
I liked Roseanne. Working class female comedian who got successful when it was *much* tougher than today.
I am saddened to see that an understandable hatred of Hillary may have mutated into a pro-Trump stand.
Probably a metaphor for current US politics lurking in there.
The pain and difficulty of Leaving the EU is, in itself, a clinching argument for Leaving the EU. Far from this loose association of trading nations, of which Remainers fondly spoke, it really was a superstate manque, a bureaucratic empire from which it is almost impossible to secede.
British sovereignty was a frog, being slowly boiled. Another five or ten years and escape would have been impossible. That much is now clear.
No, Leaving is easy.
Leaving without completely trashing our economy is the hard part.
The problem only started because Samsung were working to Apple's timetable - they wanted their new handset on sale before the competition announced their new product. With hindsight they should have waited and fixed the problem, taken the hit on initial sales.
With foresight, they've done the right thing in killing it dead before it affects the brand more than it has already. Going to be a real mess to sort out through, especially in US and EU markets where the handsets are most commonly sold by service providers with contracts.
As I posted earlier, I do wonder if they have two problems with the design: one with some of the batteries used, and the other in charging firmware/circuitry.
It's a real mess. It'll be interesting to look back in a year and see how they've handled the mess itself, and the long aftermath. It'll also be interesting to see if it allows a supplier like MediaTek to get a foothold with Samsung wrt charging tech.
Mind, Mrs J's smiling: she dislikes Samsung almost as much as I dislike Apple.
Lots of pro Israel, anti Muslim, anti immigrant/migrant stuff with a seasoning of watery Trump exoneration.
Inneressing point she makes: google the one word "rapist" and see what you get in images, and in all results. If this is manipulation by trumpers, frightening that it is doable and extraordinary that google haven't done anything about it.
Lots of pro Israel, anti Muslim, anti immigrant/migrant stuff with a seasoning of watery Trump exoneration.
Female as well like Ms Plato.
Hilary has a problem that a good few women are unreasonably indulgent with errant alpha males but really harsh on members of the sisterhood who let the side down.
I suspect though few will admit to it to anyone other than the ballot box though.
Ha! Given for yrs I've described myself here as a bloke in girls' body [hubby definition] - I think alpha males are attractive. I'm alpha female - it's a dominance battle rather than a walkover. Beta males are a bit creepy when they show interest without wooing.
Mr. T, that's why I didn't agree with Mr. Eagles' line that we should, could've and would've been better off to vote Remain, then in a decade or so vote to leave.
Lots of pro Israel, anti Muslim, anti immigrant/migrant stuff with a seasoning of watery Trump exoneration.
Inneressing point she makes: google the one word "rapist" and see what you get in images, and in all results. If this is manipulation by trumpers, frightening that it is doable and extraordinary that google haven't done anything about it.
Evidently the Liberal-Fascist MSM reptilian elite are falling down on the job. Just can't get the staff nowadays.
So why is this government/leavers spending more time focusing on the colour of the UK passport than they are on financial passporting?
Because the man in the street doesn't understand it - those of us who have taken a closer interest do and government isn't taking to us, we are not the intended audience.
There will not be a divergence of Financial Regulations, because the EU will be looking to achieve the same thing that everyone else is, including us and most of the rest of the financial world - convergence and therefore fuller freedom of capital.
There is going to be a lot of detailed stuff coming out in small bites, but nearly everyone saying anything right now is posturing, including the Banks, the CBI, the Govt, the EU, the other heads of state, and especially the media (who feel that they now have to justify their actions during the campaign and feel that they're being proven to be seers).
What about big, proud, open, expansive, trade based, internationally engaging nationalism? Your comment seems to suggest anyone who is proud of their country and wishes for it to become a better country but still a country (as opposed to an administrative region of a superstate) is somehow compromised.
Anyone who claims the vote was not won by the message "we hate foreigners" is an idiot.
Like Dan Hannan.
Oh you're dead right that that was the deciding factor - ruthlessly exploited by those who were fighting for the same result but different reasons. The 'freedom' vote has been surpressed by the establishment for 40 years. Vote Leave took their chance. I crawled across broken glass to vote leave. But would be entirely happy with a soft Brexit. All my relatives who voted remain did so despite their intrinsic dislike and distrust of the EU because they were persuaded by Project Fear. All have since told me they'd vote leave if it was rerun today.
I would however somewhat dispute your choice of the word 'hate'. I think 'resent' is better. It's not a 'yuk Romanian untermensch' view so much as a 'why am I at the back of the housing, school places, GP slots, jobs queue with all these Romanians in town' view. For some that morphs into hate. But not for most.
I'm delighted with @edmundintokyo Ignore function - Hannan hates foreigners? What idiotic tosh. He's Peruvian and speaks several languages.
What a nitwit.
I remain surprised that PBers who know a great deal better indulge in such crappy stuff.
We all have eyes and there's no Facebook likes to earn.
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,” he told the Telegraph.
Comments
I would however somewhat dispute your choice of the word 'hate'. I think 'resent' is better. It's not a 'yuk Romanian untermensch' view so much as a 'why am I at the back of the housing, school places, GP slots, jobs queue with all these Romanians in town' view. For some that morphs into hate. But not for most.
I'm still surprised we voted to Leave given how lopsided the two sides were.
Mr. Mortimer, aye, not to mention many MPs (Miliband, Clegg, some wet lettuces on the blue benches) want the EU to have as much influence and power over us as possible.
Clegg, after all, thinks we'll be a pygmy without the EU.
Single Market = ECJ
FOM = continued immigration (even with making it more difficult, as per @MaxPB's point about Germany).
The unknown is of course how much the EU27 will cave, but prima facie, there simply cannot be anything other than hard Brexit.
You lost, Mike: get over it.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/02/if-zac-loses-london-and-the-brexiters-fail-it-will-say-a-lot-about-the-declining-influence-of-the-press/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/02/09/maybe-ed-miliband-has-judged-that-the-tory-press-isnt-the-force-that-it-was-anymore/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/03/25/read-all-about-it-the-news-sources-that-matter-nowadays/
My favourite is this line from Mr Meeks:
Newspapers influence relatively few people. Their sales have been declining for a generation and their audience penetration has been dropping particularly sharply recently. Their readers appear literally to be dying off.
On the FOM thing I do not know how to square the circle. My gut tells me (I have seen no research) that welfare reform would only have a marginal impact.
We do need to, perhaps in the longer term after a transition period, FOM with FTW. I don't think that necessarily means hard Brexit (understanding that these labels are not super helpful).
With foresight, they've done the right thing in killing it dead before it affects the brand more than it has already. Going to be a real mess to sort out through, especially in US and EU markets where the handsets are most commonly sold by service providers with contracts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Maastricht_Treaty_referendum,_1992
That said, the nerves of social snowflakes are not within the remit of Govt. I care not a jot for the Remainian headbangers (Soubry et all) wringing their hands over our proud assertion of sovereignty.
http://statespoll.com/post/150913143905/virginia-trump-vs-hillary-vs-johnson-vs-stein#_=_
My Analysis
1. Undersampled White evangelicals. only 13.65% of the entire samples?
1) Election 2012: it was 23%
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/VA/president/
2. Adjust the Poll as realisitic Religion % (White Evan 23% | Other 77%)
1) Hillary: White Evan(23%)x14% + Non-White-Evan(77%)x50%= 41.72%
2) TRUMP: White Evan(23%)x69% + Non-White-Evan(77%)x32%= 40.51%
3) Johnson: White Evan(23%)x4% + Non-White-Evan(77%)x8%= 7.08%
4) Stein: White Evan(23%)x0% + Non-White-Evan(77%)x1%= 0.77%
Had squares or the line given way, we surely wouldn't need to be having all this never-ending referendum fallout two hundred years later...
As an aside, Napoleon's dinky stature is an early triumph of British newspapers. Cartoonists portrayed him as a midget, whereas he was of a perfectly average height. But everyone still thinks he was a pygmy.
May needs to get on with it.
I would however like to see the final deal sanctified by parliament. If doubt it would fail unless it really was the self-harming hard Brexit of my fears.
He also had the genius line of vote to give me, a politician with a big salary and expense account, a P45. I can't ever recall that line from anyone else before!
By the way, did you ever publish your "Patrick Party" manifesto anywhere?
Trump's no Romney.
619's a joke.
Why are you trying to steal the silver lining?
Anti-elite sentiment is simply a rage against the developing world developing and hence impinging upon our living standards. Those at the bottom are hit hardest.
Quite how you address this I'm not 100% sure but bigger government is I suppose one way of attempting it.
It would cause a constitutional crisis and another election.
But that's one of the risks of a very badly designed referendum. Among Cameron's crimes, constitutional vandalism is right up there.
Is that a racist term for eastern Europeans or a description of discussing the Constitution of Uganda with a prolific tweeter?
I'm not sure if there is anyone 'better' we could hope for in Germany than Merkel though?
I don't think Snopes is the be end of anything having seen oodles of bias - don't accept them.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-fact-checkers-keep-destroying-fact-checking/article/2604163
"Got that? "Everyone is wrong here" and "Both candidates were wrong," because Trump called Obama's "Red Line" a "line in the sand." Find me a functional difference between those two terms and you may have a point. Otherwise, our fact-checkers have turned into semantic nit-pickers.
...
Besides these two, NBC posted a few other factchecks on Twitter that night. Trump on Russian hacks, Trump on Hillary's representation of an accused rapist, Trump on his Iraq War position, Trump on "Check out sex tape," Trump on San Bernardino shooters. Notice a pattern?
Every single fact check posted on Twitter by NBC on debate night was of a Trump statement they deemed false or misleading. Of course, this tells us more about NBC's fact checkers than it does about the relative veracity of Trump or Clinton. There were plenty of errors to catch Clinton in, but they didn't rise to tweetable fact checks Sunday night.
Lots of journalists, including myself, worry about what happens when the public broadly loses faith in the media...
From a hardline Remain type's perspective, it's voting for the deal (a shit sandwich) or no deal (the sandwich, but without the bread).
While some remainers are still in shock, I recognise there is no way back.
The only patriotic thing to me it seems is to argue for a soft Brexit and to support those in the EU who want or could enable the same.
That needs to be balanced with the risk of a nativist and nationalist France on our doorstep but as little as I like Sarkozy, he is no Trump or Le Pen. I am rooting for him.
But it doesn't matter: Napoleon was doomed either way.
Wellington believed that had his line broken, he could have retreated in order to defensible wooded ground and held out no matter what. Napoleon would have won the battle but Wellington would still have had an army in being (as Blucher crucially did after Ligny). Meanwhile, the Austrians and Russians were on the march with half a million men under arms.
The crucial fact about Waterloo was not that Napoleon lost. Sooner or later, numbers made that inevitable. The crucial fact was that Britain won. That made a great deal of difference in Britain's influence in the diplomatic game of the future of Europe post-1815.
Looking for something
We can rely on
There's gotta be something better out there
Love and compassion
Their day is coming
All else are castles built in the air
And I wonder when we are ever gonna change
Living under the fear till nothing else remains
All the children say
We don't need another Euro
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond
Eurozone
https://twitter.com/therealroseanne
Lots of pro Israel, anti Muslim, anti immigrant/migrant stuff with a seasoning of watery Trump exoneration.
https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-advises-extension-funds-passport-12-non-eu-countries
Despite the myths we grew up on, our army wasn't in any meaningful sense actually very British!
Hilary has a problem that a good few women are unreasonably indulgent with errant alpha males but really harsh on members of the sisterhood who let the side down.
I suspect though few will admit to it to anyone other than the ballot box though.
I am saddened to see that an understandable hatred of Hillary may have mutated into a pro-Trump stand.
Parliament wouldn't ignore the referendum result, but it would vote against leaving the single market, because there has been absolutely zero official consultation with the public on that particular issue. As well it should.
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
It doesn't mention the single market or border controls in that question. How does anyone actually know what the public want, beyond a couple of oh-so reliable opinion polls? Lots of people 'knew' that we would vote to stay in the EU after all.
Arguing for soft brexit doesn't connect in any way to being a "remoaner", at least it doesn't until there is some sort of public consultation on whether the majority of the country want to leave the single market.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/785841624165281792
Leaverstan was a coalition of all sorts, including the conservative middle classes. It could not have won otherwise. In general, they are not obscurantists. That's what I pray, anyway.
Their day is coming
surely?
A royal yacht would be an excellent venue for trade deal negotiations.
Of course, if they do, they'll prove him right.
The headbangers want to frustrate at every turn. They are willing a bad deal on the country through wailing and gnashing their ineffective gums.
And they need to be slapped down. This, the weakest argument in their canon, can be countered by putting some stick about within the party. This can be doing by suggesting party unity is what kelps them in a job. In more ways than one. Deselection, danger of electoral defeat and withdrawing the whip are the tools for the job.
Baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785842546878578688
Leaving without completely trashing our economy is the hard part.
It's a real mess. It'll be interesting to look back in a year and see how they've handled the mess itself, and the long aftermath. It'll also be interesting to see if it allows a supplier like MediaTek to get a foothold with Samsung wrt charging tech.
Mind, Mrs J's smiling: she dislikes Samsung almost as much as I dislike Apple.
Any difficulty now would be far greater then.
Just can't get the staff nowadays.
There will not be a divergence of Financial Regulations, because the EU will be looking to achieve the same thing that everyone else is, including us and most of the rest of the financial world - convergence and therefore fuller freedom of capital.
There is going to be a lot of detailed stuff coming out in small bites, but nearly everyone saying anything right now is posturing, including the Banks, the CBI, the Govt, the EU, the other heads of state, and especially the media (who feel that they now have to justify their actions during the campaign and feel that they're being proven to be seers).
What a nitwit.
I remain surprised that PBers who know a great deal better indulge in such crappy stuff.
We all have eyes and there's no Facebook likes to earn.
How long before FOX stops giving him support? ( Aside from Hannitty of course)
Remind me again how well Trump does on 'Has he the right temperament for president?'