Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
Lot of it about these days on here. Witness the absurd Plato who puts people on ignore merely for challenging her, and the many PB Leavers who opine that those who backed Remain should just shut up about it and smile, despite their thinking Brexit is a disaster for the country.
Is that poor Bobajob gone backwards, or another village idiot
The very same village idiot Malcolm – hope you are well
I just wonder if the Germans and the French through the ECB will do to us what they did to Greece. With Greece it was the bond yields that were manipulated.With us they could continue to push the currency down until we almost beg for mercy. What happens then?
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
I just wonder if the Germans and the French through the ECB will do to us what they did to Greece. With Greece it was the bond yields that were manipulated.With us they could continue to push the currency down until we almost beg for mercy. What happens then?
Interesting to note that Corbyn isn't listed among the Patrons, Officers & Steering Committee of Stop the War. Their contact address is his constituency office!
One of my colleagues has just asked a very interesting (to me) question: does Trump have any friends? As in actual friends who he can relax with in an atmosphere of easy informality? If not (and my guess would be that he hasn't), who keeps him in touch with reality?
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.
The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.
The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.
Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.
If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
This. For all of Trump's inadequacies he has at least expressed the concerns of so many Americans (something the establishment in GOP and RNC can't do) and has offered solutions (albeit stupid ones). Clinton is continuity Obama who was continuity Bush etc etc - something will give eventually. An anti-politics vote still strikes me as a realistic prospect.
The whole idea of an "anti-politics vote" is laughable. That it is demonstrably an oxymoron doesn't seem to have registered with the Corbynista Leaver Trumper Tendency on here.
Yet more dim-wittery from those who think anti-immigration Red BNP nativism should be indulged.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
The idea that minds as mediocre as those possessed by David Davies and Liam Fox are going to play a pivotal role in shaping this country's ongoing relationship with the rest of the world is terrifying. They need ceaseless scrutiny.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
This. For all of Trump's inadequacies he has at least expressed the concerns of so many Americans (something the establishment in GOP and RNC can't do) and has offered solutions (albeit stupid ones). Clinton is continuity Obama who was continuity Bush etc etc - something will give eventually. An anti-politics vote still strikes me as a realistic prospect.
The whole idea of an "anti-politics vote" is laughable. That it is demonstrably an oxymoron doesn't seem to have registered with the Corbynista Leaver Trumper Tendency on here.
Yet more dim-wittery from those who think anti-immigration Red BNP nativism should be indulged.
Happens after every BIG recession. See 1929: Germany, UK, Italy..
If she announces to the country great news, we are still in the single market, plus we have some fudge on immigration, she worries now ahead of that moment that her bastards will skewer her for her "victory".
1/ PriU & Chd on skills not geography
3/Hard tough rules on criminals/terrorists.
LOL.
Customs officer: So, Mr X, I see you put on your visa application form that you are a terrorist...
And we used to laugh at the US visa question: do you advocate the overthrow of the United States by force...
More seriously,
2/ why the love affair with poor put-upon quants? They walk into jobs easily at the moment wherever they are from..India..EU..you name it - it is an uninformed soundbite. Check out e-financial careers and type in "quantitative" if you doubt it.
4/Fine for the refugees, haven't looked at 1951 UN Convention...sounds like an at the margin issue. Refugees aren't the problem, EU immigration is.
5/ k, that is the nub of the problem. How do we do this? Work visas presumably.
6/ fine, more Canadian navvies rather than Polish ones. Are we sure we will get the same number sufficient for our grand house-building programme? Or perhaps he means Indian ones. Or perhaps he really doesn't
Some of this may be LOL stuff (though 3 is surely more about ease of deportment than entry?) but the point is for the Government to set out a clear post-Brexit policy, which doesn't have to be repressive.
Yes well it is a start. My view is that the more debate there is about what we want post-Brexit UK to look like, the better. I worry that Tezza's strategy is to say nothing not because of negotiating tactics (they will leak Day 1 of actual negotiations), but because she is worried that anything she says will become a hostage to fortune.
I would prefer that the UK could unite, or at least agree to agree on a set of aims that we then send our negotiating team in to achieve.
Naive perhaps but that way national unity is preserved and when or if we don't achieve all we set out to, we all feel nevertheless feel invested in the outcome. The problem with this no running commentary thing is that whatever we get will come as a perhaps nasty surprise to a large number of people and I don't think that's the right approach in this critical and sensitive time.
I'm afraid I do think that is naive. We would obviously "agree" on as applepie a set of aims as we could and the government would then be blamed for not achieving them in negotiation.
I just wonder if the Germans and the French through the ECB will do to us what they did to Greece. With Greece it was the bond yields that were manipulated.With us they could continue to push the currency down until we almost beg for mercy. What happens then?
They lose a lot of money?
Why? Not if it forces us to adopt some of their demands
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
The idea that minds as mediocre as those possessed by David Davies and Liam Fox are going to play a pivotal role in shaping this country's ongoing relationship with the rest of the world is terrifying. They need ceaseless scrutiny.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
The idea that minds as mediocre as those possessed by David Davies and Liam Fox are going to play a pivotal role in shaping this country's ongoing relationship with the rest of the world is terrifying. They need ceaseless scrutiny.
They are certainly far better minds than Soubry's - mind you that's not saying much. I have known earthworms with more intelligence than Soubry.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
Dearie me. I am not Plato in disguise, you know, I was just trying to nullify the effect whereby any post making a general point is pounced on for evidence as to which primary-school-playground gang the poster belongs to. Unsuccessfully, it seems.
I'd never think you were Plato, in disguise or otherwise.
I don't particularly care what, if any, camp you are in. But I felt your point was wrong, so I made a contrary point. You certainly have not tried to address that point.
Perhaps "so save it" should go on the list of PB's banned phrases / words ...
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.
The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.
The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.
Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.
If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.
I agree with all of that. But that's why we have a parliamentary system. Leavers should have been made to win a parliamentary majority where their plan could have been scrutinised in a GE campaign after opposition contact with Civil Servants. We only had a referendum because no one thought a Leave vote conceivable.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.
We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
Lot of it about these days on here. Witness the absurd Plato who puts people on ignore merely for challenging her, and the many PB Leavers who opine that those who backed Remain should just shut up about it and smile, despite their thinking Brexit is a disaster for the country.
Is that poor Bobajob gone backwards, or another village idiot
The very same village idiot Malcolm – hope you are well
Glad you are back Bob, often wrong but a welcome addition to teh site. Hope you are also in the pink.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
Biden would have slaughtered Trump. Hillary still may, of course, but we're talking 450+ ECV with Biden as the candidate.
And a 50/50 split in the wwc vote instead of Trump still leading by ~20%. His oratory is better than Obama in a way because it can reach the average Joe.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
The idea that minds as mediocre as those possessed by David Davies and Liam Fox are going to play a pivotal role in shaping this country's ongoing relationship with the rest of the world is terrifying. They need ceaseless scrutiny.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
Biden would have slaughtered Trump. Hillary still may, of course, but we're talking 450+ ECV with Biden as the candidate.
And a 50/50 split in the wwc vote instead of Trump still leading by ~20%. His oratory is better than Obama in a way because it can reach the average Joe.
I don't think the devaluation is an economic problem. However the denial on here that it's a political problem is hilarious. The Leave Campaign was predicated on there been no pain or losers from Brexit. Leave didn't do the drudgery of cost/benefit analysis or detail. Perhaps that's why people like me made the huge mistake of not taking it seriously. None of which would matter except Leave actually won. So know we have the first of many losers. The devaluation is a political not an economic problem.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.
The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.
The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.
Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.
If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.
I agree with all of that. But that's why we have a parliamentary system. Leavers should have been made to win a parliamentary majority where their plan could have been scrutinised in a GE campaign after opposition contact with Civil Servants. We only had a referendum because no one thought a Leave vote conceivable.
Nasty horrible electorate spoiling things for all those important politicians.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.
The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.
The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.
Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.
If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.
I agree with all of that. But that's why we have a parliamentary system. Leavers should have been made to win a parliamentary majority where their plan could have been scrutinised in a GE campaign after opposition contact with Civil Servants. We only had a referendum because no one thought a Leave vote conceivable.
Nasty horrible electorate spoiling things for all those important politicians.
"I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you pesky voters!"
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.
We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.
Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
This. For all of Trump's inadequacies he has at least expressed the concerns of so many Americans (something the establishment in GOP and RNC can't do) and has offered solutions (albeit stupid ones). Clinton is continuity Obama who was continuity Bush etc etc - something will give eventually. An anti-politics vote still strikes me as a realistic prospect.
The whole idea of an "anti-politics vote" is laughable. That it is demonstrably an oxymoron doesn't seem to have registered with the Corbynista Leaver Trumper Tendency on here.
Yet more dim-wittery from those who think anti-immigration Red BNP nativism should be indulged.
Your post is self-stultifying. The oxymoron point vanishes if you replace "anti-politics" with "anti-establishment" or "anti-political elite", and you yourself posit the existence of a "Corbynista Leaver Trumper Tendency". What is the common theme that brings those strands together (and while we are at it, Podemos, Syriza, Jobbik, and Five Star) if not an anti-establishment vote? I suspect you are simply indulging in yahboo politics and on RochdalePioneers' case for daring to suggest Trump might win; he won't, but that says nothing about the nature of the support which he is getting. I mean, look at him: you don't think people are going to vote for him on his own merits, do you?
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
No, they're not.
Yes actually they are.
That's like me saying that all Remainers are called traitors when they express doubts about leaving the EU.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.
We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.
Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.
But EU citizens are not British Citizens. Why one rule for them and one rule for non-EU people?
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
The idea that minds as mediocre as those possessed by David Davies and Liam Fox are going to play a pivotal role in shaping this country's ongoing relationship with the rest of the world is terrifying. They need ceaseless scrutiny.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.
The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.
The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.
Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.
If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.
I agree with all of that. But that's why we have a parliamentary system. Leavers should have been made to win a parliamentary majority where their plan could have been scrutinised in a GE campaign after opposition contact with Civil Servants. We only had a referendum because no one thought a Leave vote conceivable.
I wouldn't argue with that, Mr. Submarine, but we are where that bloody fool Cameron put us. To expect the government now to have all its ducks in a row and a coherent set of proposals is just bloody daft. In three to six months time possibly (and lights will be burning late in Whitehall to make that), but now, not four months after the vote and with piss all preparation done before hand, is crackers.
HMG just cannot be expected to have an answer for serious questions until at least mid-January at the earliest.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
Dearie me. I am not Plato in disguise, you know, I was just trying to nullify the effect whereby any post making a general point is pounced on for evidence as to which primary-school-playground gang the poster belongs to. Unsuccessfully, it seems.
I'd never think you were Plato, in disguise or otherwise.
I don't particularly care what, if any, camp you are in. But I felt your point was wrong, so I made a contrary point. You certainly have not tried to address that point.
Perhaps "so save it" should go on the list of PB's banned phrases / words ...
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
Lot of it about these days on here. Witness the absurd Plato who puts people on ignore merely for challenging her, and the many PB Leavers who opine that those who backed Remain should just shut up about it and smile, despite their thinking Brexit is a disaster for the country.
Is that poor Bobajob gone backwards, or another village idiot
The very same village idiot Malcolm – hope you are well
Glad you are back Bob, often wrong but a welcome addition to teh site. Hope you are also in the pink.
A gentleman to the end Malcolm! Yes, all is well with me.
There's all sorts of entertainment this afternoon as Podesta 4 comes out
Paul Joseph Watson .@heatstreet - Do you know your "conservative" writer Mensch has been caught writing imaginary Hillary campaign ads? https://t.co/3Pmuw4UOVa
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.
We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.
Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.
You have no idea what the arrangements will be after Brexit.
And what you suggest would continue to be racist. Under your terms even more so as we would be making an arbitrary distinction between sets of countries we have no association with.
Of course personally I don't want more restrictions on immigration. I just want everyone to be treated equally with what restrictions there are being arranged fairly for all. A German should not get preferential treatment of an Indian.
A negotiation of the length, complexity and importance of Brexit isn't compatible with traditional democratic scrutiny as we've come to understand it in a 24hr media let alone internet world. Basically Brexit is akin to negotiating an armistice then peace treaty after a war. We just need to let the government get on with it once certain very broad parameters are set ( which in fairness to May she's done. ) The Commons then either maintains or withdraws confidence from the government as it sees fit.
However the is politically unsustainable as Leave was about taking back control. When in actual fact Brexit involves giving the government something akin to War Powers. So in principle I'm very sympathetic to the government who have an impossible job. However politically May has taken total ownership of Brexit and Leavers are in the key posts. So politically let's hoist them by their own petard. Let's spend every day showing " Take Back Control " for the post reality nonsense it was.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
Dearie me. I am not Plato in disguise, you know, I was just trying to nullify the effect whereby any post making a general point is pounced on for evidence as to which primary-school-playground gang the poster belongs to. Unsuccessfully, it seems.
I'd never think you were Plato, in disguise or otherwise.
I don't particularly care what, if any, camp you are in. But I felt your point was wrong, so I made a contrary point. You certainly have not tried to address that point.
Perhaps "so save it" should go on the list of PB's banned phrases / words ...
Added.
"Your name vill also go on the list. Vot is it?" "Don't tell him, Pike!"
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
Dearie me. I am not Plato in disguise, you know, I was just trying to nullify the effect whereby any post making a general point is pounced on for evidence as to which primary-school-playground gang the poster belongs to. Unsuccessfully, it seems.
I'd never think you were Plato, in disguise or otherwise.
I don't particularly care what, if any, camp you are in. But I felt your point was wrong, so I made a contrary point. You certainly have not tried to address that point.
Perhaps "so save it" should go on the list of PB's banned phrases / words ...
I have seen no sign of those at the top of the political pile being effectively and usefully held to account by journalistic scrutiny during my adult lifetime (beginning, roughly speaking, with Maggie in 1979). The media never laid a glove on Thatcher or Blair, it took their own parties to get rid of them, and I find the same to be true, only more so, of US presidents in the same time period. So your ideas that there is a veridical glare of press attention on top politicians is much less strong than it looks at first glance.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
No, they're not.
Yes actually they are.
That's like me saying that all Remainers are called traitors when they express doubts about leaving the EU.
I haven't heard mainstream commentators and politicians referring to Remain supporters as traitors. I have heard plenty of commentators and politicians referring to any proposed immigration controls as racist.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.
We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.
Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.
But EU citizens are not British Citizens. Why one rule for them and one rule for non-EU people?
Why one rule for Canadian citizens visiting the US and a different one for those from other countries? Why do Australia and New Zealand have free movement for their each other's citizens? Agreements are made, deals are done, and things happen. The EU's single market involves the free movement of the EU's citizens. We signed up to that. Now we have voted to leave it. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
No, they're not.
Yes actually they are.
That's like me saying that all Remainers are called traitors when they express doubts about leaving the EU.
My impression is that Fox is an cast iron idiot without the intelligence to have doubt. Education doesn't equal intelligence (as has long been argued and indeed proved on here).
Davis is more interesting. I had assumed that he was similar. Wiki though says he held the restructuring of a British Sugar sub. That sheds more light on his ability. It's possible that he'll be quite effective in his current role which is akin to a restructuring and relies, like a restructuring to a significant degree, on bullying and ego. It also helps to explain why he has frequently led a tribe of one and invests greater belief in his ability then always deserved - if you look at restructurings compared to going concerns there's frequently a completely different senior leadership team. The former doesn't take well to criticism and has a belief in the bulldozer principle of management (together with consultants to do detail). That might seem familiar.
A negotiation of the length, complexity and importance of Brexit isn't compatible with traditional democratic scrutiny as we've come to understand it in a 24hr media let alone internet world. Basically Brexit is akin to negotiating an armistice then peace treaty after a war. We just need to let the government get on with it once certain very broad parameters are set ( which in fairness to May she's done. ) The Commons then either maintains or withdraws confidence from the government as it sees fit.
However the is politically unsustainable as Leave was about taking back control. When in actual fact Brexit involves giving the government something akin to War Powers. So in principle I'm very sympathetic to the government who have an impossible job. However politically May has taken total ownership of Brexit and Leavers are in the key posts. So politically let's hoist them by their own petard. Let's spend every day showing " Take Back Control " for the post reality nonsense it was.
Of course that is predicated on the idea that we must have control NOW!!!!
Given that we are still in the EU that is just plain stupid. Additionally the whole process of the negotiation is to regain those controls. Since that process hasn't yet even started properly it is just fatuous and childish to start screaming about how we have no control NOW!!!.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.
We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.
Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.
But EU citizens are not British Citizens. Why one rule for them and one rule for non-EU people?
Why one rule for Canadian citizens visiting the US and a different one for those from other countries? Why do Australia and New Zealand have free movement for their each other's citizens? Agreements are made, deals are done, and things happen. The EU's single market involves the free movement of the EU's citizens. We signed up to that. Now we have voted to leave it. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Well, of course we VOTED to leave - The Sunil on Sunday was instrumental in that after all
But we haven't actually ended free movement - yet...
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
No, they're not.
Yes actually they are.
That's like me saying that all Remainers are called traitors when they express doubts about leaving the EU.
I haven't heard mainstream commentators and politicians referring to Remain supporters as traitors. I have heard plenty of commentators and politicians referring to any proposed immigration controls as racist.
The Daily Mail was calling Remainers unpatriotic subversives today.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.
We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.
Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.
Why? Do you have a time machine that enables you to look into the future? Just how can you be so certain s to say what will happen? I can think quite easily of three of four scenarios different from that which you paint. Just think back to pre-Maastricht for a start, then add in Anglosphere element.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
No, they're not.
Yes actually they are.
That's like me saying that all Remainers are called traitors when they express doubts about leaving the EU.
I haven't heard mainstream commentators and politicians referring to Remain supporters as traitors. I have heard plenty of commentators and politicians referring to any proposed immigration controls as racist.
The Daily Mail was calling Remainers unpatriotic subversives today.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.
We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.
Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.
You have no idea what the arrangements will be after Brexit.
And what you suggest would continue to be racist. Under your terms even more so as we would be making an arbitrary distinction between sets of countries we have no association with.
Of course personally I don't want more restrictions on immigration. I just want everyone to be treated equally with what restrictions there are being arranged fairly for all. A German should not get preferential treatment of an Indian.
And a German will continue to get preferential treatment, in my opinion; just as India gives me preferential treatment over the Chinese citizens who work in our Hong Kong office, or to just about anyone over Pakistanis. Countries across the world discriminate between citizens of different states. My guess is that there will still be freedom of movement inside the UK for Irish citizens post-Brexit, too. No-one else will get that.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.
The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.
The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.
Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.
If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.
I agree with all of that. But that's why we have a parliamentary system. Leavers should have been made to win a parliamentary majority where their plan could have been scrutinised in a GE campaign after opposition contact with Civil Servants. We only had a referendum because no one thought a Leave vote conceivable.
So our political parties were failing really, because clearly there was an issue because more than half the voters said there was, in effect, when actually asked. It rather cast suspicion that the political parties were avoiding asking a question on the EU because deep deep down they feared they answer they might get. The Lib Dems wanted an in/out instead of a Lisbon Treaty referendum I recall. Careful what they wished for and all that.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
No, they're not.
Yes actually they are.
That's like me saying that all Remainers are called traitors when they express doubts about leaving the EU.
I haven't heard mainstream commentators and politicians referring to Remain supporters as traitors. I have heard plenty of commentators and politicians referring to any proposed immigration controls as racist.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
No, they're not.
Yes actually they are.
That's like me saying that all Remainers are called traitors when they express doubts about leaving the EU.
I haven't heard mainstream commentators and politicians referring to Remain supporters as traitors. I have heard plenty of commentators and politicians referring to any proposed immigration controls as racist.
The Daily Mail was calling Remainers unpatriotic subversives today.
"Whingeing. Contemptuous. Unpatriotic. Damn the Bremoaners and their plot to subvert the will of the British people"
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.
We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.
Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.
Why? Do you have a time machine that enables you to look into the future? Just how can you be so certain s to say what will happen? I can think quite easily of three of four scenarios different from that which you paint. Just think back to pre-Maastricht for a start, then add in Anglosphere element.
Obviously, I am expressing my opinion - just like everyone else on here. I suspect that we will continue to offer EU citizens the right to visit the UK without visa restrictions and that this will be reciprocated by the EU. Likewise, I suspect that we will offer Irish citizens complete free movement. There are other imaginable scenarios, but as they would involve significant inconvenience to Brits travelling in Europe I suspect all sides will decide they are not worth the bother.
I haven't heard mainstream commentators and politicians referring to Remain supporters as traitors. I have heard plenty of commentators and politicians referring to any proposed immigration controls as racist.
Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.
It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
No, they're not.
Yes actually they are.
That's like me saying that all Remainers are called traitors when they express doubts about leaving the EU.
I haven't heard mainstream commentators and politicians referring to Remain supporters as traitors. I have heard plenty of commentators and politicians referring to any proposed immigration controls as racist.
The Daily Mail was calling Remainers unpatriotic subversives today.
"Whingeing. Contemptuous. Unpatriotic. Damn the Bremoaners and their plot to subvert the will of the British people"
Sod future Labour leader. I backed him to be *next* Labour leader.
The problem with that is that Labour won't want to lose the lock on the mayoralty that they have with Sadiq in the role. He is hugely popular here, and has already delivered on the Night Tube, which was forever delayed by fudge and faff under Boris.
It was delayed by the unions, I assume that Khan just caved to them.
It will be interesting to see what happens to his poll ratings when the fare increases that he promised wouldn't happen do.
I have seen no sign of those at the top of the political pile being effectively and usefully held to account by journalistic scrutiny during my adult lifetime (beginning, roughly speaking, with Maggie in 1979). The media never laid a glove on Thatcher or Blair, it took their own parties to get rid of them, and I find the same to be true, only more so, of US presidents in the same time period. So your ideas that there is a veridical glare of press attention on top politicians is much less strong than it looks at first glance.
That better?
The media laid plenty of gloves on both Thatcher and Blair. The media didn't bring them down (which seems to be what you want) (*), perhaps because there wasn't much to bring them down with. ANd it was not for a lack of trying on the media's part. Both led the country with success in some areas, and failures in others, all of which was documented in gruelling detail in the media.
The press were more than willing to show the flaws and vulnerabilities in their personalities, and this was especially the case for Brown. You could argue that Blair got a fairy free run in this respect from 1997 to 2002.
(*) They did have a hand in Maggie's downfall, but only a hand.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.
The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.
The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.
Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.
If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.
I agree with all of that. But that's why we have a parliamentary system. Leavers should have been made to win a parliamentary majority where their plan could have been scrutinised in a GE campaign after opposition contact with Civil Servants. We only had a referendum because no one thought a Leave vote conceivable.
Still not accepting the result, I see.
Guess what; very few people like the EU and we're leaving.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.
The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.
Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.
If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.
I agree with all of that. But that's why we have a parliamentary system. Leavers should have been made to win a parliamentary majority where their plan could have been scrutinised in a GE campaign after opposition contact with Civil Servants. We only had a referendum because no one thought a Leave vote conceivable.
Parliament is well within its rights to ignore the referendum result. Would it be sensible though? Also remember and I would have thought that as a Lib Dem you would be sensitive to this that our parliament is not perhaps as representative of the people as we might like it to be. Ukip with 4m votes have 1 MP and the SNP with a million have 56. The Tories have a small majority in the Commons but one they got on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on EU membership. I'd love to hear the excuse that they promised to hold a referendum but they never promised to respect the result. That's before we get onto the almost comical situation in the Lords with nearly 1000 appointed members little reflecting the last general election.
And if people thought an OUT vote was inconceivable they are obviously too stupid to be members of parliament. The polls were always close enough after all. Not many saw the Scottish referendum as a foregone concusion so why this?
Sod future Labour leader. I backed him to be *next* Labour leader.
The problem with that is that Labour won't want to lose the lock on the mayoralty that they have with Sadiq in the role. He is hugely popular here, and has already delivered on the Night Tube, which was forever delayed by fudge and faff under Boris.
It was delayed by the unions, I assume that Khan just caved to them.
It will be interesting to see what happens to his poll ratings when the fare increases that he promised wouldn't happen do.
Comments
What happens then?
But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.
They lose a lot of money?
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/about/stop-the-war-patrons-officers-steering-cttee
Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.
If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.
The whole idea of an "anti-politics vote" is laughable. That it is demonstrably an oxymoron doesn't seem to have registered with the Corbynista Leaver Trumper Tendency on here.
Yet more dim-wittery from those who think anti-immigration Red BNP nativism should be indulged.
See 1929: Germany, UK, Italy..
It's all in the history books..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Davies_(Welsh_politician)
I don't particularly care what, if any, camp you are in. But I felt your point was wrong, so I made a contrary point. You certainly have not tried to address that point.
Perhaps "so save it" should go on the list of PB's banned phrases / words ...
We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.
HMG just cannot be expected to have an answer for serious questions until at least mid-January at the earliest.
Paul Joseph Watson
.@heatstreet - Do you know your "conservative" writer Mensch has been caught writing imaginary Hillary campaign ads? https://t.co/3Pmuw4UOVa
And what you suggest would continue to be racist. Under your terms even more so as we would be making an arbitrary distinction between sets of countries we have no association with.
Of course personally I don't want more restrictions on immigration. I just want everyone to be treated equally with what restrictions there are being arranged fairly for all. A German should not get preferential treatment of an Indian.
However the is politically unsustainable as Leave was about taking back control. When in actual fact Brexit involves giving the government something akin to War Powers. So in principle I'm very sympathetic to the government who have an impossible job. However politically May has taken total ownership of Brexit and Leavers are in the key posts. So politically let's hoist them by their own petard. Let's spend every day showing " Take Back Control " for the post reality nonsense it was.
"Don't tell him, Pike!"
That better?
Davis is more interesting. I had assumed that he was similar. Wiki though says he held the restructuring of a British Sugar sub. That sheds more light on his ability. It's possible that he'll be quite effective in his current role which is akin to a restructuring and relies, like a restructuring to a significant degree, on bullying and ego. It also helps to explain why he has frequently led a tribe of one and invests greater belief in his ability then always deserved - if you look at restructurings compared to going concerns there's frequently a completely different senior leadership team. The former doesn't take well to criticism and has a belief in the bulldozer principle of management (together with consultants to do detail). That might seem familiar.
Given that we are still in the EU that is just plain stupid. Additionally the whole process of the negotiation is to regain those controls. Since that process hasn't yet even started properly it is just fatuous and childish to start screaming about how we have no control NOW!!!.
But we haven't actually ended free movement - yet...
EDIT: Oops - wrong forum!
NEW THREAD
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/720169/Parliament-vote-act-EU-Brexit-British-Westminster-MPs
That is a long way from calling them traitors.
So again you are proved wrong.
It will be interesting to see what happens to his poll ratings when the fare increases that he promised wouldn't happen do.
The press were more than willing to show the flaws and vulnerabilities in their personalities, and this was especially the case for Brown. You could argue that Blair got a fairy free run in this respect from 1997 to 2002.
(*) They did have a hand in Maggie's downfall, but only a hand.
Guess what; very few people like the EU and we're leaving.
And if people thought an OUT vote was inconceivable they are obviously too stupid to be members of parliament. The polls were always close enough after all. Not many saw the Scottish referendum as a foregone concusion so why this?