They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
But when allegations relate to incidents years, even decades past, you have to look at the timing of them - in the final weeks of a campaign when merely raising them can be politically damaging - and think "hmmmm......"
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
He certainly does not help himself either, his performance last night was dire.
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
He certainly does not help himself either, his performance last night was dire.
I am sure there is one thing that we can all agree on here - how on earth has the US ended up with these two for election as the POTUS
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
But when allegations relate to incidents years, even decades past, you have to look at the timing of them - in the final weeks of a campaign when merely raising them can be politically damaging - and think "hmmmm......"
Perhaps so.
However "pussygate" and Trump's flat denial at the debate seems to have emboldened some. The allegations being damaging doesn't make them any less true or false.
You make the assumption that citizens in the EU object to other EU citizens circulating freely within their home countries.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
That's why Germany just put in massive benefits restrictions on EU migrants. Your view is in the minority.
You conflate freedom of movement with the ability to go abroad to claim benefits. Angela Merkel at least makes a very clear distinction between the two. I heard an interview when she was discussing this.
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
But when allegations relate to incidents years, even decades past, you have to look at the timing of them - in the final weeks of a campaign when merely raising them can be politically damaging - and think "hmmmm......"
Perhaps so.
However "pussygate" and Trump's flat denial at the debate seems to have emboldened some. The allegations being damaging doesn't make them any less true or false.
Pussygate is nowhere near as damaging without these people coming forward. Linked? Surely not...
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
He certainly does not help himself either, his performance last night was dire.
Quite so.
Trump's chances were thin but these recent events and his reactions seem only to have marginalized him further. Perhaps you might send Donald some fine Scottish turnip wine to reinvigorate his campaign ? ..
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
But when allegations relate to incidents years, even decades past, you have to look at the timing of them - in the final weeks of a campaign when merely raising them can be politically damaging - and think "hmmmm......"
Perhaps so.
However "pussygate" and Trump's flat denial at the debate seems to have emboldened some. The allegations being damaging doesn't make them any less true or false.
Pussygate is nowhere near as damaging without these people coming forward. Linked? Surely not...
And with that, dinner beckons.
It is beginning to look like an orchestrated campaign, which if so dosent reflect well on the establishment or msm.
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
But when allegations relate to incidents years, even decades past, you have to look at the timing of them - in the final weeks of a campaign when merely raising them can be politically damaging - and think "hmmmm......"
Perhaps so.
However "pussygate" and Trump's flat denial at the debate seems to have emboldened some. The allegations being damaging doesn't make them any less true or false.
Pussygate is nowhere near as damaging without these people coming forward. Linked? Surely not...
And with that, dinner beckons.
It is beginning to look like an orchestrated campaign, which if so dosent reflect well on the establishment or msm.
It's almost like someone did some opposition research and is now feeding stories to the press. Shocking. Scandalous.
Thank you for the article, Cyclefree. It may be Friday evening and I'm tired at the end of the working week but I've struggled with this and I find up disagreeing with most if not all of it.
Throughout history, people have always gone to the money whether it be agricultural workers coming to work in factories or people from Scotland, Ireland and Wales coming to London.
I'm no supporter of the Single Market but it requires the ability of people to be able to move freely to make it happen. It has concentrated wealth in places like London and parts of Bavaria and the Rhineland and that wealth draws in the labour to make it happen.
The regeneration of Nine Elms, Vauxhall and Battersea has taken place thanks to cheap foreign labour just as the Underground was first built largely by Irish navvies and arguably the West German economic miracle of the 70s and 80s was predicated on Yugolslav and Turkish gastarbeiter.
Traditionally, British economic booms have foundered on capacity issues - the south east hits full employment and because jobs are chasing workers, wage inflation takes off, feeds into the general economy and growth comes to a juddering halt.
With the availability of a seemingly endless supply of cheap labour, the "good times" can go on for ever and even the greatest downturn since the 30s made little or no difference.
We took some bad decisions both in 1989 and 2004 and are living with the consequences of those decisions.
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
But when allegations relate to incidents years, even decades past, you have to look at the timing of them - in the final weeks of a campaign when merely raising them can be politically damaging - and think "hmmmm......"
Like when "news" about Lord Rennard always seemed to appear in April?
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
But when allegations relate to incidents years, even decades past, you have to look at the timing of them - in the final weeks of a campaign when merely raising them can be politically damaging - and think "hmmmm......"
Perhaps so.
However "pussygate" and Trump's flat denial at the debate seems to have emboldened some. The allegations being damaging doesn't make them any less true or false.
Pussygate is nowhere near as damaging without these people coming forward. Linked? Surely not...
And with that, dinner beckons.
It is beginning to look like an orchestrated campaign, which if so dosent reflect well on the establishment or msm.
It's almost like someone did some opposition research and is now feeding stories to the press. Shocking. Scandalous.
Stories indeed. Whether they literally are in the Jackanory sense remains tp be seen.
I would have thought if they were genuine they would have emerged as soon as he became a serious candidate.
Certainly if someone who molested me became a candidate I would want to speak out well before they ever got a party nomination, much as happened with a different sort of crime when it looked like Archer would be Tory mayor of London candidate.
Thank you for the article, Cyclefree. It may be Friday evening and I'm tired at the end of the working week but I've struggled with this and I find up disagreeing with most if not all of it.
Throughout history, people have always gone to the money whether it be agricultural workers coming to work in factories or people from Scotland, Ireland and Wales coming to London.
I'm no supporter of the Single Market but it requires the ability of people to be able to move freely to make it happen. It has concentrated wealth in places like London and parts of Bavaria and the Rhineland and that wealth draws in the labour to make it happen.
The regeneration of Nine Elms, Vauxhall and Battersea has taken place thanks to cheap foreign labour just as the Underground was first built largely by Irish navvies and arguably the West German economic miracle of the 70s and 80s was predicated on Yugolslav and Turkish gastarbeiter.
Traditionally, British economic booms have foundered on capacity issues - the south east hits full employment and because jobs are chasing workers, wage inflation takes off, feeds into the general economy and growth comes to a juddering halt.
With the availability of a seemingly endless supply of cheap labour, the "good times" can go on for ever and even the greatest downturn since the 30s made little or no difference.
We took some bad decisions both in 1989 and 2004 and are living with the consequences of those decisions.
What went wrong in 1989? Having travelled behind the Iron Curtain, and returned to Eastern Europe regularly since the wall came down, I see the events of 1989 as a turning point that transformed, for the better, the lives of millions of Europeans.
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
But when allegations relate to incidents years, even decades past, you have to look at the timing of them - in the final weeks of a campaign when merely raising them can be politically damaging - and think "hmmmm......"
Perhaps so.
However "pussygate" and Trump's flat denial at the debate seems to have emboldened some. The allegations being damaging doesn't make them any less true or false.
Pussygate is nowhere near as damaging without these people coming forward. Linked? Surely not...
And with that, dinner beckons.
It is beginning to look like an orchestrated campaign, which if so dosent reflect well on the establishment or msm.
What is the definition of main stream media exactly?
You make the assumption that citizens in the EU object to other EU citizens circulating freely within their home countries.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
That's why Germany just put in massive benefits restrictions on EU migrants. Your view is in the minority.
You conflate freedom of movement with the ability to go abroad to claim benefits. Angela Merkel at least makes a very clear distinction between the two. I heard an interview when she was discussing this.
Yes, but it is a fundamental restriction on free movement, well that's what they told Dave.
As Cyclefree says, I question whether A50 will ever be invoked. I think we have only just seen the start of the efforts of Remainers to stop this, by hook or by crook. Maybe I don't understand the finer detailers of the process, but I certainly understand politics and cynicism.
This seems an incredible idea to me. The only way I could imagine it happening is if the invocation of Article 50 were delayed for a long time and if public opinion changed decisively in the meantime owing to economic events.
At one point I wondered whether Theresa May might be leaving that option open, but she's certainly closed it off now.
Some pretty startling accusations in today's Times.
Are you talking about the New Zealand judge and her alleged comments that would make even Trump blush....
The problem of leaving someone in post too long is that they can cover up their mistakes. Perhaps May's tenure at the Home Office will come back to haunt her.
Sorry CycleFree...I'll speak my mind. First your prose is particularly dense, convoluted and difficult to read. Think shorter, simpler sentences. The problem is readers who have little time just give up. It's a skill to write simply and clearly.
Second, really...you think EU countries are happy to send their best and brightest abroad so they don't agitate at home? Major assumption there on many fronts and a bit bonkers.
And third, I gave up on the article after reading that ludicrous observation which you presented as a point of fact.
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
But when allegations relate to incidents years, even decades past, you have to look at the timing of them - in the final weeks of a campaign when merely raising them can be politically damaging - and think "hmmmm......"
Perhaps so.
However "pussygate" and Trump's flat denial at the debate seems to have emboldened some. The allegations being damaging doesn't make them any less true or false.
Pussygate is nowhere near as damaging without these people coming forward. Linked? Surely not...
And with that, dinner beckons.
It is beginning to look like an orchestrated campaign, which if so dosent reflect well on the establishment or msm.
It's almost like someone did some opposition research and is now feeding stories to the press. Shocking. Scandalous.
Stories indeed. Whether they literally are in the Jackanory sense remains tp be seen.
I would have thought if they were genuine they would have emerged as soon as he became a serious candidate.
Certainly if someone who molested me became a candidate I would want to speak out well before they ever got a party nomination, much as happened with a different sort of crime when it looked like Archer would be Tory mayor of London candidate.
Victims of abuse frequently feel powerless and often act in ways that seem irrational to those who have never been abused.
Often it takes one brave person to stand up to unlock a cavalcade of abuse victims to find the courage to speak up.
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
But when allegations relate to incidents years, even decades past, you have to look at the timing of them - in the final weeks of a campaign when merely raising them can be politically damaging - and think "hmmmm......"
Perhaps so.
However "pussygate" and Trump's flat denial at the debate seems to have emboldened some. The allegations being damaging doesn't make them any less true or false.
Pussygate is nowhere near as damaging without these people coming forward. Linked? Surely not...
And with that, dinner beckons.
It is beginning to look like an orchestrated campaign, which if so dosent reflect well on the establishment or msm.
It's almost like someone did some opposition research and is now feeding stories to the press. Shocking. Scandalous.
Stories indeed. Whether they literally are in the Jackanory sense remains tp be seen.
I would have thought if they were genuine they would have emerged as soon as he became a serious candidate.
Certainly if someone who molested me became a candidate I would want to speak out well before they ever got a party nomination, much as happened with a different sort of crime when it looked like Archer would be Tory mayor of London candidate.
Victims of abuse frequently feel powerless and often act in ways that seem irrational to those who have never been abused.
Often it takes one brave person to stand up to unlock a cavalcade of abuse victims to find the courage to speak up.
Unfortunately, and I'm not saying it's true in this case, it also opens the door to chancers who want a payday.
OT Listening to some great dance music from Don Letts Show Lloydie & The Lowbites - Birth Control (For Plato ="Doris clean that pussy out") Nora Dean - Barbwire
You make the assumption that citizens in the EU object to other EU citizens circulating freely within their home countries.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
That's why Germany just put in massive benefits restrictions on EU migrants. Your view is in the minority.
You conflate freedom of movement with the ability to go abroad to claim benefits. Angela Merkel at least makes a very clear distinction between the two. I heard an interview when she was discussing this.
Yes, but it is a fundamental restriction on free movement, well that's what they told Dave.
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
But when allegations relate to incidents years, even decades past, you have to look at the timing of them - in the final weeks of a campaign when merely raising them can be politically damaging - and think "hmmmm......"
Perhaps so.
However "pussygate" and Trump's flat denial at the debate seems to have emboldened some. The allegations being damaging doesn't make them any less true or false.
Pussygate is nowhere near as damaging without these people coming forward. Linked? Surely not...
And with that, dinner beckons.
It is beginning to look like an orchestrated campaign, which if so dosent reflect well on the establishment or msm.
It's almost like someone did some opposition research and is now feeding stories to the press. Shocking. Scandalous.
Stories indeed. Whether they literally are in the Jackanory sense remains tp be seen.
I would have thought if they were genuine they would have emerged as soon as he became a serious candidate.
Certainly if someone who molested me became a candidate I would want to speak out well before they ever got a party nomination, much as happened with a different sort of crime when it looked like Archer would be Tory mayor of London candidate.
Victims of abuse frequently feel powerless and often act in ways that seem irrational to those who have never been abused.
Often it takes one brave person to stand up to unlock a cavalcade of abuse victims to find the courage to speak up.
Unfortunately, and I'm not saying it's true in this case, it also opens the door to chancers who want a payday.
Jimmy Savile being a classic example. Quite a few of cases that came forward weren't true.
Unlike Newsnight f##k up over VIP paedos, the guy who did the ITV programme about Jimmy Savile spent nearly 2 years checking and double checking every detail of the stories he used in the programme.
Second, migration into the EU is clearly an issue. But once in, those migrants can eventually freely move around and in practice already do so. So the two issues are inevitably connected.
Indeed. The image this conjures in my mind is of the water slopping around inside a breached ocean-going ship with no internal bulkheads, vs one with proper watertight compartments below the waterline.
Sorry CycleFree...I'll speak my mind. First your prose is particularly dense, convoluted and difficult to read. Think shorter, simpler sentences. The problem is readers who have little time just give up. It's a skill to write simply and clearly.
Second, really...you think EU countries are happy to send their best and brightest abroad so they don't agitate at home? Major assumption there on many fronts and a bit bonkers.
And third, I gave up on the article after reading that ludicrous observation which you presented as a point of fact.
A rather rude post that's, sadly, rather typical of your posting style.
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Thank God, a sensible post that reflects the position in which the UK has placed itself.
Sorry CycleFree...I'll speak my mind. First your prose is particularly dense, convoluted and difficult to read. Think shorter, simpler sentences. The problem is readers who have little time just give up. It's a skill to write simply and clearly.
Second, really...you think EU countries are happy to send their best and brightest abroad so they don't agitate at home? Major assumption there on many fronts and a bit bonkers.
And third, I gave up on the article after reading that ludicrous observation which you presented as a point of fact.
Glad to see tyson admitting anyone would be bonkers to think he is one of Britain's best and brightest!
As Cyclefree says, I question whether A50 will ever be invoked. I think we have only just seen the start of the efforts of Remainers to stop this, by hook or by crook. Maybe I don't understand the finer detailers of the process, but I certainly understand politics and cynicism.
This seems an incredible idea to me. The only way I could imagine it happening is if the invocation of Article 50 were delayed for a long time and if public opinion changed decisively in the meantime owing to economic events.
At one point I wondered whether Theresa May might be leaving that option open, but she's certainly closed it off now.
It's pretty clear to me what the EU strategy is: wait as long as possible prior to the timeout of A50, and then offer the UK a pretty shitty deal, or no deal.
Their hope is that the economic turbulence in the UK will then have shifted public opinion in favour of Remaining, as way better than that, and acted as a warning to other EU member states.
The EU will then say: "of course, if you want to stay, we will be generous: you can have Cameron's deal back" - and they might throw in a couple more concessions on free movement and benefits, again, to sweeten it, probably in line with reform of what other EU member states are planning to do anyway.
Some pretty startling accusations in today's Times.
Which are?
That the chair for 18 months of the inquiry into child sexual abuse was racist ("you have to drive 50 miles from London to see a white face", treated staff with contempt and was of doubtful mental ability to understand the evidence, and that the Home Office under Mrs May covered it up. The inquiry, which has been running for over 2 years, has yet to hear any evidence.
She denies everything. The Times appears sufficiently convinced to repeat accusations in its editorial, and to question whether Mrs May was aware of the alleged scandal.
Some pretty startling accusations in today's Times.
Which are?
That the chair for 18 months of the inquiry into child sexual abuse was racist ("you have to drive 50 miles from London to see a white face", treated staff with contempt and was of doubtful mental ability to understand the evidence, and that the Home Office under Mrs May covered it up. The inquiry, which has been running for over 2 years, has yet to hear any evidence.
She denies everything. The Times appears sufficiently convinced to repeat accusations in its editorial, and to question whether Mrs May was aware of the alleged scandal.
The Times also recently printed a story about what was said when Mrs May met Obama at the White House.... only problem, she never has never had such a meeting.
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Thank God, a sensible post that reflects the position in which the UK has placed itself.
Except Cyclefree is not saying what Nick claims she was. She is suggesting that we ask for what we want, rather than second guess ourselves. And if they say no, they say no.
(And, in any case, there is nothing per se wrong in saying this is what I think is best for you, if you accept that the other party may well ignore you.)
There is no reason the UK should simply accept the terms of negotiation dictated by the EU27. There are essentially four options for the negotiations:
1. conduct them on the EU27's terms 2. conduct them on the UK's terms 3. conduct them based on a compromise between 1 and 2 4. admit there is no ZOPA, and fall back on WTO terms.
Neither 1 or 2 is going to happen. The best outcome for the UK is not going to happen unless we know what 2 is. If the EU27 are intent on what Nick says, to make the new arrangement work adequately, some version of 3 will happen. If the EU27 stick to their 4 freedoms mantra, 4 will be the outcome.
It's pretty clear to me what the EU strategy is: wait as long as possible prior to the timeout of A50, and then offer the UK a pretty shitty deal, or no deal.
Their hope is that the economic turbulence in the UK will then have shifted public opinion in favour of Remaining, as way better than that, and acted as a warning to other EU member states.
The EU will then say: "of course, if you want to stay, we will be generous: you can have Cameron's deal back" - and they might throw in a couple more concessions on free movement and benefits, again, to sweeten it, probably in line with reform of what other EU member states are planning to do anyway.
Oh well, that might be a more feasible strategy. But I find it unbelievable that we won't get as far as Article 50 being invoked, as the previous commenter suggested.
What went wrong in 1989? Having travelled behind the Iron Curtain, and returned to Eastern Europe regularly since the wall came down, I see the events of 1989 as a turning point that transformed, for the better, the lives of millions of Europeans.
As with 1918-19, tumultuous events were misunderstood, misinterpreted and twisted by western European politicians for their own ends.
Far from allowing the new states to find their feet politically, socially, economically and culturally and far from applying a new "Marshall Plan" to begin economic reconstruction, all the west wanted was the cheap labour the new states offered. There was an unseemly rush to pull these new states into western European institutions such as the EU and NATO and the consequences of those actions are with us today in terms of a poor relationship with Moscow and the problems the flow of economic migrants has caused in the west.
IMHO, we should have kept the new states as associate members only for 25 years while we rebuilt them economically and politically. Far from being complicit in the depopulation of places like Lithuania and Romania, we should have gone in ourselves to these countries with billions of pounds, marks, francs or whatever of investment in a programme of economic reconstruction.
All we wanted though was cheap labour in our factories, on our building sites and in our coffee shops to keep our economies growing. Understandable but short-sighted.
Sorry CycleFree...I'll speak my mind. First your prose is particularly dense, convoluted and difficult to read. Think shorter, simpler sentences. The problem is readers who have little time just give up. It's a skill to write simply and clearly.
Second, really...you think EU countries are happy to send their best and brightest abroad so they don't agitate at home? Major assumption there on many fronts and a bit bonkers.
And third, I gave up on the article after reading that ludicrous observation which you presented as a point of fact.
A rather rude post that's, sadly, rather typical of your posting style.
Please....the worst I am saying is that Cycle's prose is convoluted and dense, and difficult to read and I am questioning opinions in the article presented as fact.
It's hardly an ad hominem attack. I didn't call Cyclefree a dick as some people on here are inclined to do, or tell Cycleefree to fuck off, call Cyclefree a pervert, a traitor or all the other stuff that comes my way from you, Moses and your ilk.
As said, I refuse to and will not get involved in personal attacks here. Brexit ideology....well I'll carry on cursing that wretched ideology in whichever way I choose.....
You make the assumption that citizens in the EU object to other EU citizens circulating freely within their home countries.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
That's why Germany just put in massive benefits restrictions on EU migrants. Your view is in the minority.
You conflate freedom of movement with the ability to go abroad to claim benefits. Angela Merkel at least makes a very clear distinction between the two. I heard an interview when she was discussing this.
Yes, but it is a fundamental restriction on free movement, well that's what they told Dave.
No they didn't. Germany's change we already had.
No, this isn't legislation for an emergency brake, it is a permanent restriction on migrant rights to claim benefits for the first 5 years when they arrive. It goes against the concept of EU citizenship, that all citizens within the EU are equal and have the same rights everywhere in the bloc.
Some pretty startling accusations in today's Times.
Which are?
That the chair for 18 months of the inquiry into child sexual abuse was racist ("you have to drive 50 miles from London to see a white face", treated staff with contempt and was of doubtful mental ability to understand the evidence, and that the Home Office under Mrs May covered it up. The inquiry, which has been running for over 2 years, has yet to hear any evidence.
She denies everything. The Times appears sufficiently convinced to repeat accusations in its editorial, and to question whether Mrs May was aware of the alleged scandal.
Nick, is her behaviour the reason others associated with the inquiry left it?
What went wrong in 1989? Having travelled behind the Iron Curtain, and returned to Eastern Europe regularly since the wall came down, I see the events of 1989 as a turning point that transformed, for the better, the lives of millions of Europeans.
As with 1918-19, tumultuous events were misunderstood, misinterpreted and twisted by western European politicians for their own ends.
Far from allowing the new states to find their feet politically, socially, economically and culturally and far from applying a new "Marshall Plan" to begin economic reconstruction, all the west wanted was the cheap labour the new states offered. There was an unseemly rush to pull these new states into western European institutions such as the EU and NATO and the consequences of those actions are with us today in terms of a poor relationship with Moscow and the problems the flow of economic migrants has caused in the west.
IMHO, we should have kept the new states as associate members only for 25 years while we rebuilt them economically and politically. Far from being complicit in the depopulation of places like Lithuania and Romania, we should have gone in ourselves to these countries with billions of pounds, marks, francs or whatever of investment in a programme of economic reconstruction.
All we wanted though was cheap labour in our factories, on our building sites and in our coffee shops to keep our economies growing. Understandable but short-sighted.
As much as your argument has merit, the characterisation of an 'unseemly rush' doesn't fit the timeline. The eastern enlargement of the EU didn't happen until 2004, a full 15 years after the fall of communism. If you're comparing with the post WW2 period that would take us up to 1960.
You make the assumption that citizens in the EU object to other EU citizens circulating freely within their home countries.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
That's why Germany just put in massive benefits restrictions on EU migrants. Your view is in the minority.
You conflate freedom of movement with the ability to go abroad to claim benefits. Angela Merkel at least makes a very clear distinction between the two. I heard an interview when she was discussing this.
Yes, but it is a fundamental restriction on free movement, well that's what they told Dave.
No they didn't. Germany's change we already had.
No, this isn't legislation for an emergency brake, it is a permanent restriction on migrant rights to claim benefits for the first 5 years when they arrive. It goes against the concept of EU citizenship, that all citizens within the EU are equal and have the same rights everywhere in the bloc.
Unemployment benefits isn't it? We already had that in place.
The difference is we were looking to restrict in work benefits.
I have to agree with the thrust of Cycle Free's comments here ie: that this whole "we have to respect the four freedoms, in this case freedom of movement and for that reason we cannot make any concessions to the Brits on free movements if they remain a member to the single market" is 100% bogus.
I don't blame the leading EU politicians for trying this on as clearly they need to do something to hold back the tide of demands from other nations for limits to free movement...but here is the point: one of the other freedoms, namely services, has never ever come close to being implemented properly. Just look at the absurd handling of online gambling and the national protectionism which leaves us a million miles from any real freedom in service provision across the EU.
Given that member states have been happy to junk one of the four freedoms for reasons of petty national interest/protectionism/convenience, it is hard to take these sanctimonious claims that another freedom - of movement - is somehow sacrosant, inviolable and impossible to even countenance a breach of.
What went wrong in 1989? Having travelled behind the Iron Curtain, and returned to Eastern Europe regularly since the wall came down, I see the events of 1989 as a turning point that transformed, for the better, the lives of millions of Europeans.
As with 1918-19, tumultuous events were misunderstood, misinterpreted and twisted by western European politicians for their own ends.
Far from allowing the new states to find their feet politically, socially, economically and culturally and far from applying a new "Marshall Plan" to begin economic reconstruction, all the west wanted was the cheap labour the new states offered. There was an unseemly rush to pull these new states into western European institutions such as the EU and NATO and the consequences of those actions are with us today in terms of a poor relationship with Moscow and the problems the flow of economic migrants has caused in the west.
IMHO, we should have kept the new states as associate members only for 25 years while we rebuilt them economically and politically. Far from being complicit in the depopulation of places like Lithuania and Romania, we should have gone in ourselves to these countries with billions of pounds, marks, francs or whatever of investment in a programme of economic reconstruction.
All we wanted though was cheap labour in our factories, on our building sites and in our coffee shops to keep our economies growing. Understandable but short-sighted.
Thatcher is to blame for much of that. She knew the EU was planning to deepen European integration, most significantly through launching the common currency. Britain reckoned that if the EU went wider, it would make it more difficult to go deeper. She also saw the eastern countries as potentially useful allies against France/Germany. Unfortunately the EU called her bluff and went both wider and deeper, which arguably was the worst of both worlds.
Nevertheless 1989 represented a turning point for the eastern countries and, whilst there has of course been a lot of pain and not everyone has gained, having visited Poland every few years for the last twenty five, the transformation of that country, and its neighbours, is one of the true success stories of our lifetime. Membership of the EU has played a key part in bringing this about.
It's pretty clear to me what the EU strategy is: wait as long as possible prior to the timeout of A50, and then offer the UK a pretty shitty deal, or no deal.
Their hope is that the economic turbulence in the UK will then have shifted public opinion in favour of Remaining, as way better than that, and acted as a warning to other EU member states.
The EU will then say: "of course, if you want to stay, we will be generous: you can have Cameron's deal back" - and they might throw in a couple more concessions on free movement and benefits, again, to sweeten it, probably in line with reform of what other EU member states are planning to do anyway.
Oh well, that might be a more feasible strategy. But I find it unbelievable that we won't get as far as Article 50 being invoked, as the previous commenter suggested.
If the JP Morgan CEO is right, it will be the Eurozone that blows up first rather than us if the EU goes down that road.
You make the assumption that citizens in the EU object to other EU citizens circulating freely within their home countries.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
That's why Germany just put in massive benefits restrictions on EU migrants. Your view is in the minority.
You conflate freedom of movement with the ability to go abroad to claim benefits. Angela Merkel at least makes a very clear distinction between the two. I heard an interview when she was discussing this.
Yes, but it is a fundamental restriction on free movement, well that's what they told Dave.
No they didn't. Germany's change we already had.
No, this isn't legislation for an emergency brake, it is a permanent restriction on migrant rights to claim benefits for the first 5 years when they arrive. It goes against the concept of EU citizenship, that all citizens within the EU are equal and have the same rights everywhere in the bloc.
Unemployment benefits isn't it? We already had that in place.
The difference is we were looking to restrict in work benefits.
It's a provision that covers all benefits. Which is why it is controversial.
Some pretty startling accusations in today's Times.
Which are?
That the chair for 18 months of the inquiry into child sexual abuse was racist ("you have to drive 50 miles from London to see a white face", treated staff with contempt and was of doubtful mental ability to understand the evidence, and that the Home Office under Mrs May covered it up. The inquiry, which has been running for over 2 years, has yet to hear any evidence.
She denies everything. The Times appears sufficiently convinced to repeat accusations in its editorial, and to question whether Mrs May was aware of the alleged scandal.
Nick, is her behaviour the reason others associated with the inquiry left it?
This smells like a stitch up to me. Seems like she was despatched very shortly after Mrs May ascended to PM as a piece of tidying up. Perhaps she knows where the bodies are buried, this feels like preemptive briefing.
I wonder if hell admit to groping her because she looks good (for her age).
CNN indicating there is another Trump allegation coming from California later today.
Oh good grief
fruitcakes and attention seekers coming out of the woodwork in droves
Agreed. Can't stand Trump. But where were all these accusers before this week? There is something rotten to the core with all US federal politics.
So all the saville accusers were attention seekers because they didn't come out at the time? Sexual assualt has a stigma attached to it and as we see here there are people out there particularly willing to believe "she's making it up" when they don't have the same scepticism for other crimes which means the victims often don't tell anyone and given the recent accusers have had their phone numbers and addresses leaked on Twitter I'm not surprised by victims often reluctance to come forward.
May deserves kudos for being the first leading politician to try and call time on the drug that is QE, which has supposedly kept our economy afloat whilst doing nothing to solve the underlying issues but acting as slow poison seeping through to create huge problems of asset appreciation and inequality.
Nevertheless the potential damage if we attempt to go cold turkey could be considerable.
Nick, is her behaviour the reason others associated with the inquiry left it?
That isn't being suggested, though there is speculation in the article that the departure of the two previous inquiry chairs made the Home Office reluctant to act against a third, however incompetent or offensive she might be thought to be.
May deserves kudos for being the first leading politician to try and call time on the drug that is QE, which has supposedly kept our economy afloat whilst doing nothing to solve the underlying issues but acting as slow poison seeping through to create huge problems of asset appreciation and inequality.
Nevertheless the potential damage if we attempt to go cold turkey could be considerable.
Good. He was quite happy to sing the government's tune until it's policy changed. We need a Bank chief who has confidence in our current trajectory.
Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
I wonder if hell admit to groping her because she looks good (for her age).
CNN indicating there is another Trump allegation coming from California later today.
Oh good grief
fruitcakes and attention seekers coming out of the woodwork in droves
Agreed. Can't stand Trump. But where were all these accusers before this week? There is something rotten to the core with all US federal politics.
So all the saville accusers were attention seekers because they didn't come out at the time? Sexual assualt has a stigma attached to it and as we see here they are people at particularly willing to believe "she's making it up" when they don't have the sane scepticism for other crimes which means the victims often don't tell anyone and given the recent accusers have had their phone numbers and addresses leaked on Twitter I'm not surprised by victims often reluctance to come forward.
Not what I am saying. Yes, when the first brave one comes forward, the dam is often breached for others.
But the timing in this instance, given the tape has been out for two months already, is suspect. And yes, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that some of those coming forward are opportunists. The same does not really hold for Saville's victims, in that they came forward after his death.
Good. He was quite happy to sing the government's tune until it's policy changed. We need a Bank chief who has confidence in our current trajectory.
Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
What change in policy?
If May wants to change the framework she should do so by recourse to appropriate statutory measures. A throwaway line in a speech is reckless, incompetent or both.
Sorry CycleFree...I'll speak my mind. First your prose is particularly dense, convoluted and difficult to read. Think shorter, simpler sentences. The problem is readers who have little time just give up. It's a skill to write simply and clearly.
Second, really...you think EU countries are happy to send their best and brightest abroad so they don't agitate at home? Major assumption there on many fronts and a bit bonkers.
And third, I gave up on the article after reading that ludicrous observation which you presented as a point of fact.
A rather rude post that's, sadly, rather typical of your posting style.
Please....the worst I am saying is that Cycle's prose is convoluted and dense, and difficult to read and I am questioning opinions in the article presented as fact.
It's hardly an ad hominem attack. I didn't call Cyclefree a dick as some people on here are inclined to do, or tell Cycleefree to fuck off, call Cyclefree a pervert, a traitor or all the other stuff that comes my way from you, Moses and your ilk.
As said, I refuse to and will not get involved in personal attacks here. Brexit ideology....well I'll carry on cursing that wretched ideology in whichever way I choose.....
Here's your problem: you read something you vehemently disagree with, you get angry and worked up about it, and then you pour out all of that emotion directly into your response without taking any care to think how the other person might receive it. That ends up making the person as well as the argument a target.
You are (probably) expressing your anger at the argument, but simply cannot help yourself. And it's worse when you have been drinking.
You then act all surprised when someone responds in kind, usually after repeated incidents, and play the victim.
You have an astonishing lack of self-awareness. And I think the fundamental problem is that there's a real part of yourself you don't actually like very much: you are racked by guilt at your own financial success, and this is part of something that you wish was cathartic for you, but, because people don't react well, actually ends up making you even more unhappy when they give as good as they get. Thus reinforcing the loop.
Think about it. For your own health and wellbeing.
Good. He was quite happy to sing the government's tune until it's policy changed. We need a Bank chief who has confidence in our current trajectory.
Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
Good. He was quite happy to sing the government's tune until it's policy changed. We need a Bank chief who has confidence in our current trajectory.
Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
What change in policy?
If May wants to change the framework she should do so by recourse to appropriate statutory measures. A throwaway line in a speech is reckless, incompetent or both.
A change in policy in Brexit. He seems incapable of being positive with our future post June 23rd.
If he deliberately sets out to increase inflation above the 2% he was instructed by the government to keep to. May has every right to sack him.
I think they are meant to target inflation two years out - that means they can "look through" and ignore inflation spikes on a shorter time horizon that they consider transitory to hit the target.
It's pretty clear to me what the EU strategy is: wait as long as possible prior to the timeout of A50, and then offer the UK a pretty shitty deal, or no deal.
Their hope is that the economic turbulence in the UK will then have shifted public opinion in favour of Remaining, as way better than that, and acted as a warning to other EU member states.
The EU will then say: "of course, if you want to stay, we will be generous: you can have Cameron's deal back" - and they might throw in a couple more concessions on free movement and benefits, again, to sweeten it, probably in line with reform of what other EU member states are planning to do anyway.
Oh well, that might be a more feasible strategy. But I find it unbelievable that we won't get as far as Article 50 being invoked, as the previous commenter suggested.
The biggest mistake the EU will make is thinking it has all the cards.
The biggest mistake the UK will make is thinking the EU cares.
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Mr Palmer, I read a post of yours on this site a little while ago that I'd like to respond to.
It was on the subject of politicians, Shami Chakrabarti in this case, sending their children to Private & grammar schools while refusing to allow less fortunate people that opportunity.
You made an analogy with health provision which I don't believe to be accurate. So if I may make my own, I'd appreciate your opinion.
Imagine there were three types of hospital in the UK; private & NHS, as we have now, and a third which were very few and far between, and only available to those who passed a health test that checked their weight, whether they smoked, drank more than 14 units per week, or took illegal drugs. Only those who passed this measure were allowed treatment at these hospitals, which were free of charge and considered as good as those in the private sector.
At the same time imagine there were a very expensive one off treatment, that enabled people to pass this test, even if they were a smoker, drinker or obese through poor diet.
Would it be just for Politicians, who could both afford this treatment for their family and themselves and to live in the catchment area, access to these hospitals while voting to disallow that opportunity to poor people with a healthy lifestyle who can't afford to live in the catchment areas?
(For the sake of argument the magic drug is private tutoring.)
Good. He was quite happy to sing the government's tune until it's policy changed. We need a Bank chief who has confidence in our current trajectory.
Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
Good. He was quite happy to sing the government's tune until it's policy changed. We need a Bank chief who has confidence in our current trajectory.
Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
What change in policy?
If May wants to change the framework she should do so by recourse to appropriate statutory measures. A throwaway line in a speech is reckless, incompetent or both.
A change in policy in Brexit. He seems incapable of being positive with our future post June 23rd.
What change in our monetary policy framework does Brexit mandate? Don't remember seeing No QE on the ballot or even of on the side of a bus.
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Don't, please, make assumptions about how I voted. I've never revealed my vote - and won't. I write threads which I hope will stimulate discussion by others (rather than to persuade people to my point of view), to make points that I think haven't been made and, partly, to help me work out in my own mind what I do think about some topic.
It's harder than it looks - as il signore Tyson has kindly pointed out!
If he deliberately sets out to increase inflation above the 2% he was instructed by the government to keep to. May has every right to sack him.
He has a margin of 1% either way before needing to eat humble pie (=write a letter). But the letter would seem to be perfunctory as he's prepared to aim for the ceiling. Hubris.
Cyclefree is right (as so often). The EU argument is, as she says - brittle.
Essentially, it's "we can't give you free trade without freedom of movement, because we're scared stiff others will think "that's a great idea", and then there would we be?". Well in my view in a more democratically responsive, happier, and looser EU. And there lies the rub, the EU powers that be aren't interested in a democratically responsive, or happier EU, if it means "looser". In a nutshell that's why I voted to leave. We're on a the way to a USE and nothing as trivial as the will of the people(s) is going to be allowed to get in the way, no matter if they lose the UK, (in fairness I doubt the Junckers of this world care), or youth unemployment in Greece is 50% (or whatever it is).
Brexit, and its subset of immigration concerns, is merely the symptom of the fault line we've been dodging for 50 years: is it about economics with political add ons, as we've kidded ourselves, or a political one way street with economic add ons, as most of the Continent has believed?
If we don't get out, we're done for as a nation state, and without the express consent of European people's, all headed for utter disaster as resentment builds. That's why, for me, money is no object. It's about my place in the world and sense of self, and why I'm intensely comfortable with my vote, even though I accept it won't be a bed of roses, especially if the EU plays silly buggers with false "principles".
If he deliberately sets out to increase inflation above the 2% he was instructed by the government to keep to. May has every right to sack him.
He has a margin of 1% either way before needing to eat humble pie (=write a letter). But the letter would seem to be perfunctory as he's prepared to aim for the ceiling. Hubris.
He visited a school a couple of weeks ago and was asked by one of the students - "are you a spender or a saver?" He said saver. What they really should have asked him was "are you a borrower or a saver?"
Good. He was quite happy to sing the government's tune until it's policy changed. We need a Bank chief who has confidence in our current trajectory.
Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
Good. He was quite happy to sing the government's tune until it's policy changed. We need a Bank chief who has confidence in our current trajectory.
Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
What change in policy?
If May wants to change the framework she should do so by recourse to appropriate statutory measures. A throwaway line in a speech is reckless, incompetent or both.
A change in policy in Brexit. He seems incapable of being positive with our future post June 23rd.
What change in our monetary policy framework does Brexit mandate? Don't remember seeing No QE on the ballot or even of on the side of a bus.
Friday frothers in force tonight.
I'm not talking specifically about QE. Slashing interest rates that are already on the floor even while we are growing faster than predicted is not something someone more confident would do. He is acting like a headless chicken.
The EU is way past caring what Britain thinks. It hasn't come across the idea of an exit interview.
Isn't the lack of introspection one of the EU's biggest failings though? Maybe they don't care what we think in the UK, but it leaves them open to other countries taking a step back.
The EU is way past caring what Britain thinks. It hasn't come across the idea of an exit interview.
Isn't the lack of introspection one of the EU's biggest failings though? Maybe they don't care what we think in the UK, but it leaves them open to other countries taking a step back.
The Kaiser and Hitler were not known for their introspection. Why should the 3.0 version be any different.
Good. He was quite happy to sing the government's tune until it's policy changed. We need a Bank chief who has confidence in our current trajectory.
Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
What change in policy?
If May wants to change the framework she should do so by recourse to appropriate statutory measures. A throwaway line in a speech is reckless, incompetent or both.
But her throwaway line was correct. QE has pernicious effects, which in my view are now counterproductive to its original aim.
The EU is way past caring what Britain thinks. It hasn't come across the idea of an exit interview.
Isn't the lack of introspection one of the EU's biggest failings though? Maybe they don't care what we think in the UK, but it leaves them open to other countries taking a step back.
I'd agree with all of that. But that doesn't affect the fact that querying the sanctity of freedom of movement is a waste of time.
In any case, as others have said, freedom of movement is generally popular in other EU states. When you have land borders it seems a normal idea.
Comments
Hard to feel bad for him when he did the exact same thing.
Now Cast - 88.0 .. 12.0
Polls Only - 85.5 .. 14.5
Polls Plus - 82.1 .. 17.8
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus
However "pussygate" and Trump's flat denial at the debate seems to have emboldened some. The allegations being damaging doesn't make them any less true or false.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
And with that, dinner beckons.
Trump's chances were thin but these recent events and his reactions seem only to have marginalized him further. Perhaps you might send Donald some fine Scottish turnip wine to reinvigorate his campaign ? ..
Thank you for the article, Cyclefree. It may be Friday evening and I'm tired at the end of the working week but I've struggled with this and I find up disagreeing with most if not all of it.
Throughout history, people have always gone to the money whether it be agricultural workers coming to work in factories or people from Scotland, Ireland and Wales coming to London.
I'm no supporter of the Single Market but it requires the ability of people to be able to move freely to make it happen. It has concentrated wealth in places like London and parts of Bavaria and the Rhineland and that wealth draws in the labour to make it happen.
The regeneration of Nine Elms, Vauxhall and Battersea has taken place thanks to cheap foreign labour just as the Underground was first built largely by Irish navvies and arguably the West German economic miracle of the 70s and 80s was predicated on Yugolslav and Turkish gastarbeiter.
Traditionally, British economic booms have foundered on capacity issues - the south east hits full employment and because jobs are chasing workers, wage inflation takes off, feeds into the general economy and growth comes to a juddering halt.
With the availability of a seemingly endless supply of cheap labour, the "good times" can go on for ever and even the greatest downturn since the 30s made little or no difference.
We took some bad decisions both in 1989 and 2004 and are living with the consequences of those decisions.
I would have thought if they were genuine they would have emerged as soon as he became a serious candidate.
Certainly if someone who molested me became a candidate I would want to speak out well before they ever got a party nomination, much as happened with a different sort of crime when it looked like Archer would be Tory mayor of London candidate.
At one point I wondered whether Theresa May might be leaving that option open, but she's certainly closed it off now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnOpV72YBt8
Second, really...you think EU countries are happy to send their best and brightest abroad so they don't agitate at home? Major assumption there on many fronts and a bit bonkers.
And third, I gave up on the article after reading that ludicrous observation which you presented as a point of fact.
Often it takes one brave person to stand up to unlock a cavalcade of abuse victims to find the courage to speak up.
Lloydie & The Lowbites - Birth Control (For Plato ="Doris clean that pussy out")
Nora Dean - Barbwire
Unlike Newsnight f##k up over VIP paedos, the guy who did the ITV programme about Jimmy Savile spent nearly 2 years checking and double checking every detail of the stories he used in the programme.
Ahem
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/05/the-economics-of-discontent/
Should note doesn't mean I think all the claims are false.
Their hope is that the economic turbulence in the UK will then have shifted public opinion in favour of Remaining, as way better than that, and acted as a warning to other EU member states.
The EU will then say: "of course, if you want to stay, we will be generous: you can have Cameron's deal back" - and they might throw in a couple more concessions on free movement and benefits, again, to sweeten it, probably in line with reform of what other EU member states are planning to do anyway.
She denies everything. The Times appears sufficiently convinced to repeat accusations in its editorial, and to question whether Mrs May was aware of the alleged scandal.
(And, in any case, there is nothing per se wrong in saying this is what I think is best for you, if you accept that the other party may well ignore you.)
There is no reason the UK should simply accept the terms of negotiation dictated by the EU27. There are essentially four options for the negotiations:
1. conduct them on the EU27's terms
2. conduct them on the UK's terms
3. conduct them based on a compromise between 1 and 2
4. admit there is no ZOPA, and fall back on WTO terms.
Neither 1 or 2 is going to happen. The best outcome for the UK is not going to happen unless we know what 2 is. If the EU27 are intent on what Nick says, to make the new arrangement work adequately, some version of 3 will happen. If the EU27 stick to their 4 freedoms mantra, 4 will be the outcome.
Far from allowing the new states to find their feet politically, socially, economically and culturally and far from applying a new "Marshall Plan" to begin economic reconstruction, all the west wanted was the cheap labour the new states offered. There was an unseemly rush to pull these new states into western European institutions such as the EU and NATO and the consequences of those actions are with us today in terms of a poor relationship with Moscow and the problems the flow of economic migrants has caused in the west.
IMHO, we should have kept the new states as associate members only for 25 years while we rebuilt them economically and politically. Far from being complicit in the depopulation of places like Lithuania and Romania, we should have gone in ourselves to these countries with billions of pounds, marks, francs or whatever of investment in a programme of economic reconstruction.
All we wanted though was cheap labour in our factories, on our building sites and in our coffee shops to keep our economies growing. Understandable but short-sighted.
It's hardly an ad hominem attack. I didn't call Cyclefree a dick as some people on here are inclined to do, or tell Cycleefree to fuck off, call Cyclefree a pervert, a traitor or all the other stuff that comes my way from you, Moses and your ilk.
As said, I refuse to and will not get involved in personal attacks here. Brexit ideology....well I'll carry on cursing that wretched ideology in whichever way I choose.....
The difference is we were looking to restrict in work benefits.
I don't blame the leading EU politicians for trying this on as clearly they need to do something to hold back the tide of demands from other nations for limits to free movement...but here is the point: one of the other freedoms, namely services, has never ever come close to being implemented properly. Just look at the absurd handling of online gambling and the national protectionism which leaves us a million miles from any real freedom in service provision across the EU.
Given that member states have been happy to junk one of the four freedoms for reasons of petty national interest/protectionism/convenience, it is hard to take these sanctimonious claims that another freedom - of movement - is somehow sacrosant, inviolable and impossible to even countenance a breach of.
Nevertheless 1989 represented a turning point for the eastern countries and, whilst there has of course been a lot of pain and not everyone has gained, having visited Poland every few years for the last twenty five, the transformation of that country, and its neighbours, is one of the true success stories of our lifetime. Membership of the EU has played a key part in bringing this about.
Seems like she was despatched very shortly after Mrs May ascended to PM as a piece of tidying up. Perhaps she knows where the bodies are buried, this feels like preemptive briefing.
Nevertheless the potential damage if we attempt to go cold turkey could be considerable.
Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
But the timing in this instance, given the tape has been out for two months already, is suspect. And yes, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that some of those coming forward are opportunists. The same does not really hold for Saville's victims, in that they came forward after his death.
If May wants to change the framework she should do so by recourse to appropriate statutory measures. A throwaway line in a speech is reckless, incompetent or both.
You are (probably) expressing your anger at the argument, but simply cannot help yourself. And it's worse when you have been drinking.
You then act all surprised when someone responds in kind, usually after repeated incidents, and play the victim.
You have an astonishing lack of self-awareness. And I think the fundamental problem is that there's a real part of yourself you don't actually like very much: you are racked by guilt at your own financial success, and this is part of something that you wish was cathartic for you, but, because people don't react well, actually ends up making you even more unhappy when they give as good as they get. Thus reinforcing the loop.
Think about it. For your own health and wellbeing.
The biggest mistake the UK will make is thinking the EU cares.
It was on the subject of politicians, Shami Chakrabarti in this case, sending their children to Private & grammar schools while refusing to allow less fortunate people that opportunity.
You made an analogy with health provision which I don't believe to be accurate. So if I may make my own, I'd appreciate your opinion.
Imagine there were three types of hospital in the UK; private & NHS, as we have now, and a third which were very few and far between, and only available to those who passed a health test that checked their weight, whether they smoked, drank more than 14 units per week, or took illegal drugs. Only those who passed this measure were allowed treatment at these hospitals, which were free of charge and considered as good as those in the private sector.
At the same time imagine there were a very expensive one off treatment, that enabled people to pass this test, even if they were a smoker, drinker or obese through poor diet.
Would it be just for Politicians, who could both afford this treatment for their family and themselves and to live in the catchment area, access to these hospitals while voting to disallow that opportunity to poor people with a healthy lifestyle who can't afford to live in the catchment areas?
(For the sake of argument the magic drug is private tutoring.)
Friday frothers in force tonight.
It's harder than it looks - as il signore Tyson has kindly pointed out!
Essentially, it's "we can't give you free trade without freedom of movement, because we're scared stiff others will think "that's a great idea", and then there would we be?". Well in my view in a more democratically responsive, happier, and looser EU. And there lies the rub, the EU powers that be aren't interested in a democratically responsive, or happier EU, if it means "looser". In a nutshell that's why I voted to leave. We're on a the way to a USE and nothing as trivial as the will of the people(s) is going to be allowed to get in the way, no matter if they lose the UK, (in fairness I doubt the Junckers of this world care), or youth unemployment in Greece is 50% (or whatever it is).
Brexit, and its subset of immigration concerns, is merely the symptom of the fault line we've been dodging for 50 years: is it about economics with political add ons, as we've kidded ourselves, or a political one way street with economic add ons, as most of the Continent has believed?
If we don't get out, we're done for as a nation state, and without the express consent of European people's, all headed for utter disaster as resentment builds. That's why, for me, money is no object. It's about my place in the world and sense of self, and why I'm intensely comfortable with my vote, even though I accept it won't be a bed of roses, especially if the EU plays silly buggers with false "principles".
If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.
If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.
@welshowl - ditto.
In any case, as others have said, freedom of movement is generally popular in other EU states. When you have land borders it seems a normal idea.