But it is also expected to include plans for Scotland to remain part of the EU if a separate Scottish Brexit deal cannot be negotiated, not just as an independent nation but as the UK’s “successor state”.
Either she'll have to be very quick or Brexit will have to be very slow.
Lots of heat about Parliament being sovereign. Were we able to vote by referenda on everything, we wouldn't need Parliament - only administrators. But clearly it's far too cumbersome in so many ways. So we have a small number of representatives to put our wishes into effect.
That can work but it depends on those representatives being honest, and it depends on the representatives having a commitment to doing that. In most cases, we have a choice between one, two or three party drones. Often, drones who consider themselves above the common herd, and having superior intellects and judgement. So it's imperfect. Did you vote on the basis that your Parliamentary candidate must know better then you, so you will trust his judgement on all things? Really?
When we've gone to the massive cost of time, energy and expense of directly asking the people, we don't need another debate by our "betters".
If some of the betters, as they consider themselves, don't like the result, they can hardly call upon democracy or sovereignty as a fig leaf for self-interest or an inflated idea of their own worth.
I'd like to see a more tribal system ... "What do you think of the big chief?" "Not a lot, let's club him to death."
4h Michael McDonald @ElectProject Of the 20,269 people who voted today in Georgia, 48% are Black (11% are unknown, due to a slightly stale voter file) #soulstopolls
22
51
Even Obama could not win Georgia despite very high African American turnout in both 2008 and 2012, this year overall it will almost certainly be lower
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
CETA was negotiated by the EU Commissioners, we know that it was not debated in Parliament, but which of our ministers were involved in discussing it in cabinet? And how can we know what they said?
Incidentally on EDM 165, I see a lot of SNP MPs were not happy at the lack of open discussion. What are the implications of CETA for Scotland?
Exactly CETA has been negotiated by Commissioners not our Cabinet. Now what do you propose exactly, that having voted to Leave we sabotage a pre-negotiated deal that we are not going to be a party to once we've left?
I couldn't give a hoot what the implications of CETA are for Scotland. The CETA is the EU's baby and we're leaving the EU. If they want to ratify it then we must not stand in the way.
Ha Ha Ha , you think you are leaving you half wit, all you are doing is giving up what little influence you had and paying more for it. Idiots like you are just what the three amigos needed, kindred souls.
We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.
The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.
Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
Where's your evidence for that? Obsessive loons are indeed prepared to pay the price but lets see if ordinary people already on the breadline are, shall we? And don't forget you hardly had a swingeing majority in the first place.
The decision has been made by a majority of well over a million people. Now it's a case of making Brexit work best, not refighting old arguments.
I'm all agog to see how Brexit will be made to work for the demographics that voted for it. Bungs to multinationals will only take us so far.
The queue at Westminster for handouts will stretch for miles and teh EU negotiators will be laughing their socks off , waiting to pick the bones. Meanwhile the three amigos will be learning how to tie their shoelaces.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
CETA was negotiated by the EU Commissioners, we know that it was not debated in Parliament, but which of our ministers were involved in discussing it in cabinet? And how can we know what they said?
Incidentally on EDM 165, I see a lot of SNP MPs were not happy at the lack of open discussion. What are the implications of CETA for Scotland?
Exactly CETA has been negotiated by Commissioners not our Cabinet. Now what do you propose exactly, that having voted to Leave we sabotage a pre-negotiated deal that we are not going to be a party to once we've left?
I couldn't give a hoot what the implications of CETA are for Scotland. The CETA is the EU's baby and we're leaving the EU. If they want to ratify it then we must not stand in the way.
Ha Ha Ha , you think you are leaving you half wit, all you are doing is giving up what little influence you had and paying more for it. Idiots like you are just what the three amigos needed, kindred souls.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
CETA was negotiated by the EU Commissioners, we know that it was not debated in Parliament, but which of our ministers were involved in discussing it in cabinet? And how can we know what they said?
Incidentally on EDM 165, I see a lot of SNP MPs were not happy at the lack of open discussion. What are the implications of CETA for Scotland?
Exactly CETA has been negotiated by Commissioners not our Cabinet. Now what do you propose exactly, that having voted to Leave we sabotage a pre-negotiated deal that we are not going to be a party to once we've left?
I couldn't give a hoot what the implications of CETA are for Scotland. The CETA is the EU's baby and we're leaving the EU. If they want to ratify it then we must not stand in the way.
Ha Ha Ha , you think you are leaving you half wit, all you are doing is giving up what little influence you had and paying more for it. Idiots like you are just what the three amigos needed, kindred souls.
Yawn.
You can keep claiming leaving is remaining, less is more, up is down or wet is dry ... doesn't mean I'm an idiot for not believing your baseless claims.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
I didn't vote for a single cabinet minister.
You probably voted against the government in 2015 though.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
On topic, it's probably not Zac's campaigning that gives rise to the higher "oppose" figure. It's that the demographics of Richmond are such (high income, low unemployment) that the job creation aspect if expansion doesn't resonate (and it's also physically a bit further away so not a major employer even for tge relatively few less well off people in the area).
This is supported by other results. The Twickenham poll - somewhat less wealthy (but still well off) and closer for commuting - shows slightly lower opposition but not that much lower. The Feltham one - much less well off and the border runs down the perimeter fence of Heathrow so has a lot of workers - is pro Heathrow.
For the record, I was surprised neither Mercedes got any penalty at the start, but there we are.
I was as well. An argument I've seen, and which someone claims Mercedes used, is that the cars were so close that if Hammy and Rosberg had both braked enough to make the corner it would have concertinaed the field and caused collisions further down. That seems slightly ridiculous to me as it requires situational awareness the drivers cannot have, and also sets precedent for the leavers to go off circuit on the first corners of every race.
On another note, Vettel's explosion just confirms what I think of him.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Exactly CETA has been negotiated by Commissioners not our Cabinet. Now what do you propose exactly, that having voted to Leave we sabotage a pre-negotiated deal that we are not going to be a party to once we've left?
I couldn't give a hoot what the implications of CETA are for Scotland. The CETA is the EU's baby and we're leaving the EU. If they want to ratify it then we must not stand in the way.
Ha Ha Ha , you think you are leaving you half wit, all you are doing is giving up what little influence you had and paying more for it. Idiots like you are just what the three amigos needed, kindred souls.
Yawn.
You can keep claiming leaving is remaining, less is more, up is down or wet is dry ... doesn't mean I'm an idiot for not believing your baseless claims.
I would love to know what you base your claims on , so far all I see are surrender monkeys. First test , surrender to Nissan , what next oh wise one.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
I didn't vote for a single cabinet minister.
You probably voted against the government in 2015 though.
We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.
The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.
Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
It's fair enough for you to say you're happy to pay the price, but you should know that polling evidence shows that only (from memory) 7% of Leave supporters thought that Leaving would make the country worse off.
Far from being happy to pay the price, the great majority of Leave voters thought there would be no price to pay.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
UK, one agenda $2.4tn GDP EU27, 27 agendas $14tn GDP
UK GDP is also growing much faster the EU GDP and with inflation set to rise nominal GDP should rise by between 8-12% over the next couple of years bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
WHETHER you were for Brexit or against it, there’s little doubt that the process of actually leaving is set to present some serious headaches over the next few years.
The negotiations will be a nightmare - costly, dull, full of political point scoring at either end of the Channel, and destined to end with consequences we’ll have no way of knowing for a generation.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will be furious if a ‘hard’ Brexit is pursued, while major companies are already preparing to set sail for Frankfurt.
There is, however, a simple solution which has had surprisingly little airtime.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
I didn't vote for a single cabinet minister.
You probably voted against the government in 2015 though.
Yep, just like most people.
Either way, you had a say on the government, you can bog the argument down in the minutia of voting systems and whatever else but you still had a vote in 2015 and exercised it. In 2020 if Labour offer an alternative which is appealing to enough people your vote may go towards the formation of a new government.
Neither of us voted for the Commission, directly or indirectly. As someone who wants to reform the Lords to be elected, I don't know how you can defend the unelected Commission.
Are we having a breakfast Brexit binge before the Nov 1 cut-off date?
And procedural question pls: is a Remainer a remoaning traitor regardless, when they choose to engage with some PB Leaver's point about free movement or potential membership of the Customs Union?
WHETHER you were for Brexit or against it, there’s little doubt that the process of actually leaving is set to present some serious headaches over the next few years.
The negotiations will be a nightmare - costly, dull, full of political point scoring at either end of the Channel, and destined to end with consequences we’ll have no way of knowing for a generation.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will be furious if a ‘hard’ Brexit is pursued, while major companies are already preparing to set sail for Frankfurt.
There is, however, a simple solution which has had surprisingly little airtime.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
No it means that under our constitution 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
I didn't vote for a single cabinet minister.
You probably voted against the government in 2015 though.
Yep, just like most people.
Either way, you had a say on the government, you can bog the argument down in the minutia of voting systems and whatever else but you still had a vote in 2015 and exercised it. In 2020 if Labour offer an alternative which is appealing to enough people your vote may go towards the formation of a new government.
Neither of us voted for the Commission, directly or indirectly. As someone who wants to reform the Lords to be elected, I don't know how you can defend the unelected Commission.
I was merely observing most people did not vote for this government. The Commission has nothing to do with it (though Commissioners are nominated by national governments and approved by MEPs).
"or geographic, where parts of Britain are designated free movement areas."
That's a ridiculous suggestion, surely?
It's an idea but I don't see how it's easily squared with national targets to bring migration down to tens of thousands.
And how would one stop migrants moving from one geographic part of the UK to another once inside? It would just lead to a much larger black economy, or bureaucratic fiddling where the employee is registered in one area but mainly travels and works in another.
My view is that Theresa May will put a headline cut in absolute migration numbers as her number one political goal.
May will do a compromise of some form which is why I say do not write UKIP off yet, if as expected Paul Nuttall wins the leadership he will be ideally placed to exploit any resentment amongst Leave voters that Brexit was not hard enough and immigration controls not tough enough, especially amongst the white working class
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
I didn't vote for a single cabinet minister.
You probably voted against the government in 2015 though.
Yep, just like most people.
Either way, you had a say on the government, you can bog the argument down in the minutia of voting systems and whatever else but you still had a vote in 2015 and exercised it. In 2020 if Labour offer an alternative which is appealing to enough people your vote may go towards the formation of a new government.
Which is of course a similar argument to that used against those who say no one voted for the EU as it had evolved by this year vs 1975.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free tradehave with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single marngle market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
UK, one agenda $2.4tn GDP EU27, 27 agendas $14tn GDP
UK GDP is also growing much faster the EU GDP and with inflation set to rise nominal GDP should rise by between 8-12% over the next couple of years bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
The Canadians have their EU deal now, so there are no more problems with competing agendas. They'll do one with us too, but only if it does not jeapordise the agreement they have with the much bigger market next door.
I was merely observing most people did not vote for this government. The Commission has nothing to do with it (though Commissioners are nominated by national governments and approved by MEPs).
You can be as obtuse as you want, but there's no getting around the fact that people voted for this government when no one has voted for the Commission which is made up of political appointments.
So Clinton is being investigated over very serious matters, but it is the FBI who may have broken the law - according to the BBC.
This is a Clinton Cult, isn't it?
Er no. Even one of George W Bush's lawyers from his stint in the White House thinks Comey and the FBI have broken the law and has filed a complaint accordingly.
Just realised. Scott Adams reminds me of David Icke..
He's fundamentally lost the plot. I know Plato claims he's being ever so clever, but he's really not.
He's lost the plot for over 20 years. He believes his success comes from writing down "I will be a world famous successful cartoonist" on a piece of paper 15 times a day everyday rather than talent and hard work.
So Clinton is being investigated over very serious matters, but it is the FBI who may have broken the law - according to the BBC.
This is a Clinton Cult, isn't it?
Er no. Even one of George W Bush's lawyers from his stint in the White House thinks Comey and the FBI have broken the law and has filed a complaint accordingly.
One of the lawyers who support the Bush family, who detest Trump. One of those lawyers?
Is there someone standing in Richmond from the "Stop talking about it, just get on and build the bloody runway" party?
Just looking at the graph above, they would have 36 or 37% support, which could possibly win a by-election with Zac and the LDs splitting the anti-airport vote.
There's a dissident Tory standing on that platform.
On topic, there's an analogy to inner London being pretty relaxed about multiculturalism. If it really bothers you, you move somewhere else. I know people under the flight path who don't care about aircraft noise and were pleased to get a house at a good price from someone who did. You have to be quite hard-bitten to hate aircraft noise and stay in Richmond Park anyway.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
UK, one agenda $2.4tn GDP EU27, 27 agendas $14tn GDP
UK GDP is also growing much faster the EU GDP and with inflation set to rise nominal GDP should rise by between 8-12% over the next couple of years bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
I think it was someone on here that pointed out just how important the UK was in terms of total trade to Canada (cant remember the exact figures, but we are one of their largest trading partners).
WHETHER you were for Brexit or against it, there’s little doubt that the process of actually leaving is set to present some serious headaches over the next few years.
The negotiations will be a nightmare - costly, dull, full of political point scoring at either end of the Channel, and destined to end with consequences we’ll have no way of knowing for a generation.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will be furious if a ‘hard’ Brexit is pursued, while major companies are already preparing to set sail for Frankfurt.
There is, however, a simple solution which has had surprisingly little airtime.
I think everyone misses how big a problem the black market is in the UK. Essentially, and especially given the construction boom, there is a massive demand for undocumented workers, paid cash in hand.
So long as that demand is there, as it is in the US, then there will be people overstaying their visas, or otherwise working illegally.
If we want to better control immigration, collect more taxes, and have a more honest economy, we need to clamp down on this. If we continue as we are, we will simply have lots of Polish plumbers here on "holiday".
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Only on Planet Remain is Nissan's remaining here considered bad news.
It's great news.
We are however interested to know whether the deal done with them has set a precedent and determined the priorities for our entire EU exit negotiations.
So Clinton is being investigated over very serious matters, but it is the FBI who may have broken the law - according to the BBC.
This is a Clinton Cult, isn't it?
Er no. Even one of George W Bush's lawyers from his stint in the White House thinks Comey and the FBI have broken the law and has filed a complaint accordingly.
One of the lawyers who support the Bush family, who detest Trump. One of those lawyers?
So Clinton is being investigated over very serious matters, but it is the FBI who may have broken the law - according to the BBC.
This is a Clinton Cult, isn't it?
Er no. Even one of George W Bush's lawyers from his stint in the White House thinks Comey and the FBI have broken the law and has filed a complaint accordingly.
One of the lawyers who support the Bush family, who detest Trump. One of those lawyers?
How about committed Trump supporter Joe 'grab a musket if trump loses' Walsh
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free tradehave with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single marngle market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
UK, one agenda $2.4tn GDP EU27, 27 agendas $14tn GDP
UK GDP is also growing much faster the EU GDP and with inflation set to rise nominal GDP should rise by between 8-12% over the next couple of years bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
The Canadians have their EU deal now, so there are no more problems with competing agendas. They'll do one with us too, but only if it does not jeapordise the agreement they have with the much bigger market next door.
Sure and tbh the UK Canada deal will just look like CETA with financial and a few other services added. I'm not sure that's really going to be an issue. The real issue is getting first movers advantage across Asia, Latin America and eventually Africa. The EU may try and bully some nations to not do any deals with the UK out of bitterness but it's very unlikely. If anything the EU may decide to use any future UK trade agreements as templates for their own with a few additional agricultural NTBs protections.
I was merely observing most people did not vote for this government. The Commission has nothing to do with it (though Commissioners are nominated by national governments and approved by MEPs).
You can be as obtuse as you want, but there's no getting around the fact that people voted for this government when no one has voted for the Commission which is made up of political appointments.
Yep, some people did vote for a Tory government in 2015. I do not dispute that.
I was merely observing most people did not vote for this government. The Commission has nothing to do with it (though Commissioners are nominated by national governments and approved by MEPs).
You can be as obtuse as you want, but there's no getting around the fact that people voted for this government when no one has voted for the Commission which is made up of political appointments.
The electorate who chose Jean-Claude Juncker had more democratic legitimacy than the electorate who chose Theresa May.
So Clinton is being investigated over very serious matters, but it is the FBI who may have broken the law - according to the BBC.
This is a Clinton Cult, isn't it?
Er no. Even one of George W Bush's lawyers from his stint in the White House thinks Comey and the FBI have broken the law and has filed a complaint accordingly.
One of the lawyers who support the Bush family, who detest Trump. One of those lawyers?
How about committed Trump supporter Joe 'grab a musket if trump loses' Walsh
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Yawn. You obviously missed where I've said below that I think the government's guarantees are irrelevant.
Stop whinging you bitter leavers . You won, and you're still behaving like spoilt brats. I honestly think people such as yourself are constantly negative because you don't have anything positive to contribute.
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Only on Planet Remain is Nissan's remaining here considered bad news.
When you have to misrepresent your opponents' arguments you've lost your own. Can you point out anyone on here who has said it's bad news Nissan are staying?
Which is of course a similar argument to that used against those who say no one voted for the EU as it had evolved by this year vs 1975.
Yes and we get a say on the government every 5 years, our EU membership was not on the table in the same manner every 5 years was it.
The democratically elected government made the decisions about our relationship with the EU. There has been much the government has done without referring it to the electorate.
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Only on Planet Remain is Nissan's remaining here considered bad news.
When you have to misrepresent your opponents' arguments you've lost your own. Can you point out anyone on here who has said it's bad news Nissan are staying?
They can't.
I think they are upset because the inference from the Nissan deal is that we're remaining in the single market and customs union.
We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.
The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.
Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
The danger is that we have a serious recession in the next three years, possibly caused by Brexit, possibly caused by the inevitable and painful rebalancing our economy has to go through anyway, and that trust in politicians (who promised £350m extra per week for the NHS) is diminished further.
So Clinton is being investigated over very serious matters, but it is the FBI who may have broken the law - according to the BBC.
This is a Clinton Cult, isn't it?
Er no. Even one of George W Bush's lawyers from his stint in the White House thinks Comey and the FBI have broken the law and has filed a complaint accordingly.
One of the lawyers who support the Bush family, who detest Trump. One of those lawyers?
How about committed Trump supporter Joe 'grab a musket if trump loses' Walsh
The source said an analysis of the metadata on Weiner’s computer has turned up “positive hits for state.gov and HRC emails,” which led Comey to revisit the FBI investigation into Clinton using a private email server system while secretary of state. A second law enforcement source confirmed the account.
Hillary Clinton's evidence to the FBI Inquiry on her e-mails was under oath.
It does look as if what Comey has seen on the Weiner lap-top shows with great clarity to him - being familiar with both sides - that Hillary Clinton perjured herself in her evidence.
So he's raised a red flag. America can elect her as President - and then wait to see if she gets a pardon from Obama for her crime. However, the US President cannot pardon in a case of impeachment.
The President’s power to pardon is granted by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which provides: “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Impeachment allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed.
We'd have a fun week if the House of Representatives were to initiate impeachment against Hillary Clinton before the election! Because then she couldn't be pardoned by Obama....
Except the difference is much larger than the change in registration. Since 2012 Republican registration in Florida has stayed pretty much static as a percentage of the electorate while the Dems have only lost just over 2% with NPA gaining about 1.7%. So it isn't a seismic change as is being made out and doesn't account for the difference. NPA haven't grown as a portion of early vote by any more than the change in registration would suggest.
So Clinton is being investigated over very serious matters, but it is the FBI who may have broken the law - according to the BBC.
This is a Clinton Cult, isn't it?
Er no. Even one of George W Bush's lawyers from his stint in the White House thinks Comey and the FBI have broken the law and has filed a complaint accordingly.
One of the lawyers who support the Bush family, who detest Trump. One of those lawyers?
How about committed Trump supporter Joe 'grab a musket if trump loses' Walsh
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Yawn. You obviously missed where I've said below that I think the government's guarantees are irrelevant.
Stop whinging you bitter leavers . You won, and you're still behaving like spoilt brats. I honestly think people such as yourself are constantly negative because you don't have anything positive to contribute.
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Dear me you are touchy and so early in the day.
As Nick Palmer has pointed out you always go ad hominem so quickly and so needlessly.
Now I'm off to create some wealth have a nice day on PB.
Mr. Eagles, if we're staying in both of those, you'll get your BINO wish.
I'd be surprised if May didn't face serious ructions. She might be a rather short term PM if she goes for that.
However, it's worth noting there's not a tariff in Europe from Iceland to Turkey, so it may be a statement of the obvious (it's in everyone's interests for no tariffs on goods).
On the plus side, this conversation is distracting everyone from how woeful my tips were
Mr. Jessop, thanks, I hadn't heard that 'explanation'. It's dross.
Not sure Vettel's winning himself many fans. Some might've been amused by his view of Verstappen but attacking the race director isn't a good look.
According to Sky last night, FIA President Jean Todt was watching the race and was, umm, not particularly enamoured with the comments of Mr Vettel towards Charlie Whiting.
I think in any sport, no matter what the scenario, telling the most senior official present to f.off results in a severe punishment - and deservedly so.
It does look as if what Comey has seen on the Weiner lap-top shows with great clarity to him - being familiar with both sides - that Hillary Clinton perjured herself in her evidence.
What's your evidence for this? IIUC he's saying that he hasn't even seen the emails and doesn't know what's in them.
To those who think Comey broke the law: what was the alternative? Should he have concealed pertinent information, and then been accused of breaking the law the other way? He had to be open about it.
The FBI should have taken action in July, if Clinton has been any normal Jane Doe they would have done.
The source said an analysis of the metadata on Weiner’s computer has turned up “positive hits for state.gov and HRC emails,” which led Comey to revisit the FBI investigation into Clinton using a private email server system while secretary of state. A second law enforcement source confirmed the account.
Hillary Clinton's evidence to the FBI Inquiry on her e-mails was under oath.
It does look as if what Comey has seen on the Weiner lap-top shows with great clarity to him - being familiar with both sides - that Hillary Clinton perjured herself in her evidence.
So he's raised a red flag. America can elect her as President - and then wait to see if she gets a pardon from Obama for her crime. However, the US President cannot pardon in a case of impeachment.
The President’s power to pardon is granted by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which provides: “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Impeachment allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed.
We'd have a fun week if the House of Representatives were to initiate impeachment against Hillary Clinton before the election! Because then she couldn't be pardoned by Obama....
There aren't enough Republicans in the Senate to pass an impeachment vote.
I though we all agreed. Nissan staying is great, Q3 figures were reassuring.
But there's no decent trade case to be made for leaving the EU. And the idea that the Canadians would find the UK market more attractive than the EU market relies on a contortion of logic that amounts to self-deceit.
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Yawn. You obviously missed where I've said below that I think the government's guarantees are irrelevant.
Stop whinging you bitter leavers . You won, and you're still behaving like spoilt brats. I honestly think people such as yourself are constantly negative because you don't have anything positive to contribute.
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Dear me you are touchy and so early in the day.
As Nick Palmer has pointed out you always go ad hominem so quickly and so needlessly.
Now I'm off to create some wealth have a nice day on PB.
LOL. I'm not in the least bit touchy; just pointing out something, which I see you did not choose to answer. When did you last post something remotely positive?
As for your good self and ad hominem; your first post was a rather good example. Besides, it would be hard for my post to be ad hominem against your own ad hominem post, which was essentially just "remainers stink!"
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
UK, one agenda $2.4tn GDP EU27, 27 agendas $14tn GDP
UK GDP is also growing much faster the EU GDP and with inflation set to rise nominal GDP should rise by between 8-12% over the next couple of years bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
Although it's just taken a 20% drop relative to the rest of the EU!
Lots of heat about Parliament being sovereign. Were we able to vote by referenda on everything, we wouldn't need Parliament - only administrators. But clearly it's far too cumbersome in so many ways. So we have a small number of representatives to put our wishes into effect.
That can work but it depends on those representatives being honest, and it depends on the representatives having a commitment to doing that. In most cases, we have a choice between one, two or three party drones. Often, drones who consider themselves above the common herd, and having superior intellects and judgement. So it's imperfect. Did you vote on the basis that your Parliamentary candidate must know better then you, so you will trust his judgement on all things? Really?
When we've gone to the massive cost of time, energy and expense of directly asking the people, we don't need another debate by our "betters".
If some of the betters, as they consider themselves, don't like the result, they can hardly call upon democracy or sovereignty as a fig leaf for self-interest or an inflated idea of their own worth.
I'd like to see a more tribal system ... "What do you think of the big chief?" "Not a lot, let's club him to death."
Thud, Thud, Thud.
As you say it depends on those representatives being honest but it also depends on those representatives having the time and the knowledge to distill the facts before making a decision.
I'm not sure why we should accept a judgement that affects everyones prosperity and wellbeing on a prospectus whose veracity wouldn't on current rules be allowed in the classified ads of the Hartlipool Observer.
There are good reason's why we have rules preventing cigarette companies claiming smoking increases your lifespan.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
I didn't vote for a single cabinet minister.
You may not have have but over 30 million Brits voted in the last General Election, which was won by the over 11 million Brits who voted Conservative. The cabinet is made up of those elected in that election by the winning party.
The last European Parliament election was "won" by the EPP who got just over 38 million votes Europe wide, beating into second place the S&D who lost in a distant second place with only just over 40 million votes. As a result the EPP's winning candidate Junker got "elected" to form a Commission, made of people who didn't stand in that election. Zero votes were cast in the whole United Kingdom for the EPP.
Except the difference is much larger than the change in registration. Since 2012 Republican registration in Florida has stayed pretty much static as a percentage of the electorate while the Dems have only lost just over 2% with NPA gaining about 1.7%. So it isn't a seismic change as is being made out and doesn't account for the difference. NPA haven't grown as a portion of early vote by any more than the change in registration would suggest.
And more to the point despite the growth in NPA the 18-29 vote so far this year is just something like 7% in the early vote. The NPAs aren't a horde of Dem leaning millenials coming out for Hillary.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
UK, one agenda $2.4tn GDP EU27, 27 agendas $14tn GDP
UK GDP is also growing much faster the EU GDP and with inflation set to rise nominal GDP should rise by between 8-12% over the next couple of years bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
I think it was someone on here that pointed out just how important the UK was in terms of total trade to Canada (cant remember the exact figures, but we are one of their largest trading partners).
Although that number includes oil exports from Canada's East coast, so you probably need to step that out. (On the basis that oil is a global market on which no tariffs are levied.)
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but alsoagreement they have with the EU.
Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.
Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?
Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.
Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
I didn't vote for a single cabinet minister.
You may not have have but over 30 million Brits voted in the last General Election, which was won by the over 11 million Brits who voted Conservative. The cabinet is made up of those elected in that election by the winning party.
The last European Parliament election was "won" by the EPP who got just over 38 million votes Europe wide, beating into second place the S&D who lost in a distant second place with only just over 40 million votes. As a result the EPP's winning candidate Junker got "elected" to form a Commission, made of people who didn't stand in that election. Zero votes were cast in the whole United Kingdom for the EPP.
No-one voted for the EPP anywhere. It is a grouping of different national parties in the European Parliament which none of the British parties chose to join (the Tories having decided a few years ago to leave during one of Dave's Euro-grandstanding periods).
Sure and tbh the UK Canada deal will just look like CETA with financial and a few other services added. I'm not sure that's really going to be an issue. The real issue is getting first movers advantage across Asia, Latin America and eventually Africa. The EU may try and bully some nations to not do any deals with the UK out of bitterness but it's very unlikely. If anything the EU may decide to use any future UK trade agreements as templates for their own with a few additional agricultural NTBs protections.
Won't we, in all likelihood, just remain signatories to CETA post-Brexit?
That latest projection is interesting, because it's partly based on early voting and partly on polling evidence. The projected lead has increased by about half a point, to 6.4%, during the course of early voting so far. If I understand correctly, this is still using polling data from about a week ago, so that change is entirely due to the early voting numbers.
No-one voted for the EPP anywhere. It is a grouping of different national parties in the European Parliament which none of the British parties chose to join (the Tories having decided a few years ago to leave during one of Dave's Euro-grandstanding periods).
Not true. The EPP stood in London and got several hundred votes.
So Clinton is being investigated over very serious matters, but it is the FBI who may have broken the law - according to the BBC.
This is a Clinton Cult, isn't it?
Er no. Even one of George W Bush's lawyers from his stint in the White House thinks Comey and the FBI have broken the law and has filed a complaint accordingly.
One of the lawyers who support the Bush family, who detest Trump. One of those lawyers?
Well its academic because the FBI now have the warrant.
Would be interesting if there are 15 years e-mails of the Clinton Foundation on that LapTop.
You may not have have but over 30 million Brits voted in the last General Election, which was won by the over 11 million Brits who voted Conservative. The cabinet is made up of those elected in that election by the winning party.
The last European Parliament election was "won" by the EPP who got just over 38 million votes Europe wide, beating into second place the S&D who lost in a distant second place with only just over 40 million votes. As a result the EPP's winning candidate Junker got "elected" to form a Commission, made of people who didn't stand in that election. Zero votes were cast in the whole United Kingdom for the EPP.
Actually the EPP got more than zero: There was a thing called the Four Freedoms Party that ran in London on behalf of the EPP and got 28,014 votes. That's not a huge number, but it's 18,959 more than the Conservative Party got in Northern Ireland in 2015.
The source said an analysis of the metadata on Weiner’s computer has turned up “positive hits for state.gov and HRC emails,” which led Comey to revisit the FBI investigation into Clinton using a private email server system while secretary of state. A second law enforcement source confirmed the account.
Hillary Clinton's evidence to the FBI Inquiry on her e-mails was under oath.
It does look as if what Comey has seen on the Weiner lap-top shows with great clarity to him - being familiar with both sides - that Hillary Clinton perjured herself in her evidence.
So he's raised a red flag. America can elect her as President - and then wait to see if she gets a pardon from Obama for her crime. However, the US President cannot pardon in a case of impeachment.
The President’s power to pardon is granted by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which provides: “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Impeachment allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed.
We'd have a fun week if the House of Representatives were to initiate impeachment against Hillary Clinton before the election! Because then she couldn't be pardoned by Obama....
There aren't enough Republicans in the Senate to pass an impeachment vote.
The House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach. Which would be enough to sink Hillary with independents, I would suggest. So it wouldn't get to stage two, which is hearing the impeachment in the Senate.
Just realised. Scott Adams reminds me of David Icke..
He's fundamentally lost the plot. I know Plato claims he's being ever so clever, but he's really not.
If watching "literally hundreds of hours of stuff on the US elections'" distlls down to those websites then there is something seriously amiss with the distilling process
Sure and tbh the UK Canada deal will just look like CETA with financial and a few other services added. I'm not sure that's really going to be an issue. The real issue is getting first movers advantage across Asia, Latin America and eventually Africa. The EU may try and bully some nations to not do any deals with the UK out of bitterness but it's very unlikely. If anything the EU may decide to use any future UK trade agreements as templates for their own with a few additional agricultural NTBs protections.
Won't we, in all likelihood, just remain signatories to CETA post-Brexit?
I'm honestly not sure how the existing EU trade deals will carry over, if at all. At least on the basis of leaving the customs union.
I was merely observing most people did not vote for this government. The Commission has nothing to do with it (though Commissioners are nominated by national governments and approved by MEPs).
You can be as obtuse as you want, but there's no getting around the fact that people voted for this government when no one has voted for the Commission which is made up of political appointments.
I would rather have the Commission answerable to elected MEPs, than Mrs May`s government, elected by only 24% of the registered electors.
Comments
That can work but it depends on those representatives being honest, and it depends on the representatives having a commitment to doing that. In most cases, we have a choice between one, two or three party drones. Often, drones who consider themselves above the common herd, and having superior intellects and judgement. So it's imperfect. Did you vote on the basis that your Parliamentary candidate must know better then you, so you will trust his judgement on all things? Really?
When we've gone to the massive cost of time, energy and expense of directly asking the people, we don't need another debate by our "betters".
If some of the betters, as they consider themselves, don't like the result, they can hardly call upon democracy or sovereignty as a fig leaf for self-interest or an inflated idea of their own worth.
I'd like to see a more tribal system ... "What do you think of the big chief?" "Not a lot, let's club him to death."
Thud, Thud, Thud.
You can keep claiming leaving is remaining, less is more, up is down or wet is dry ... doesn't mean I'm an idiot for not believing your baseless claims.
You're evidently doing it wrong. You know you run on your feet, not your hands?
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
This is supported by other results. The Twickenham poll - somewhat less wealthy (but still well off) and closer for commuting - shows slightly lower opposition but not that much lower. The Feltham one - much less well off and the border runs down the perimeter fence of Heathrow so has a lot of workers - is pro Heathrow.
On another note, Vettel's explosion just confirms what I think of him.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/north-carolina-early-vote-tracker.html
Far from being happy to pay the price, the great majority of Leave voters thought there would be no price to pay.
EU27, 27 agendas $14tn GDP
UK GDP is also growing much faster the EU GDP and with inflation set to rise nominal GDP should rise by between 8-12% over the next couple of years bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
WHETHER you were for Brexit or against it, there’s little doubt that the process of actually leaving is set to present some serious headaches over the next few years.
The negotiations will be a nightmare - costly, dull, full of political point scoring at either end of the Channel, and destined to end with consequences we’ll have no way of knowing for a generation.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will be furious if a ‘hard’ Brexit is pursued, while major companies are already preparing to set sail for Frankfurt.
There is, however, a simple solution which has had surprisingly little airtime.
England should just leave the UK.
http://www.euroweeklynews.com/3.0.15/news/on-euro-weekly-news/uk-news/141726-why-doesn#.WBb4SOdvQqQ.twitter
Neither of us voted for the Commission, directly or indirectly. As someone who wants to reform the Lords to be elected, I don't know how you can defend the unelected Commission.
And procedural question pls: is a Remainer a remoaning traitor regardless, when they choose to engage with some PB Leaver's point about free movement or potential membership of the Customs Union?
Not sure Vettel's winning himself many fans. Some might've been amused by his view of Verstappen but attacking the race director isn't a good look.
So Clinton is being investigated over very serious matters, but it is the FBI who may have broken the law - according to the BBC.
This is a Clinton Cult, isn't it?
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/mexico-post-race-analysis-2016.html
Monthly blog visitors have gone from a few hundred a month to over 4,000 in October, which is just weird.
No, I am not exaggerating.
One of the lawyers who support the Bush family, who detest Trump. One of those lawyers?
On topic, there's an analogy to inner London being pretty relaxed about multiculturalism. If it really bothers you, you move somewhere else. I know people under the flight path who don't care about aircraft noise and were pleased to get a house at a good price from someone who did. You have to be quite hard-bitten to hate aircraft noise and stay in Richmond Park anyway.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/792858565736296449
I think everyone misses how big a problem the black market is in the UK. Essentially, and especially given the construction boom, there is a massive demand for undocumented workers, paid cash in hand.
So long as that demand is there, as it is in the US, then there will be people overstaying their visas, or otherwise working illegally.
If we want to better control immigration, collect more taxes, and have a more honest economy, we need to clamp down on this. If we continue as we are, we will simply have lots of Polish plumbers here on "holiday".
We are however interested to know whether the deal done with them has set a precedent and determined the priorities for our entire EU exit negotiations.
https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/792894595663290368
NTBsprotections.Stop whinging you bitter leavers . You won, and you're still behaving like spoilt brats. I honestly think people such as yourself are constantly negative because you don't have anything positive to contribute.
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
I think they are upset because the inference from the Nissan deal is that we're remaining in the single market and customs union.
Walsh is being very clever with the way he responded.
It does look as if what Comey has seen on the Weiner lap-top shows with great clarity to him - being familiar with both sides - that Hillary Clinton perjured herself in her evidence.
So he's raised a red flag. America can elect her as President - and then wait to see if she gets a pardon from Obama for her crime. However, the US President cannot pardon in a case of impeachment.
The President’s power to pardon is granted by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which provides: “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Impeachment allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed.
We'd have a fun week if the House of Representatives were to initiate impeachment against Hillary Clinton before the election! Because then she couldn't be pardoned by Obama....
As Nick Palmer has pointed out you always go ad hominem so quickly and so needlessly.
Now I'm off to create some wealth have a nice day on PB.
I'd be surprised if May didn't face serious ructions. She might be a rather short term PM if she goes for that.
However, it's worth noting there's not a tariff in Europe from Iceland to Turkey, so it may be a statement of the obvious (it's in everyone's interests for no tariffs on goods).
On the plus side, this conversation is distracting everyone from how woeful my tips were
I think in any sport, no matter what the scenario, telling the most senior official present to f.off results in a severe punishment - and deservedly so.
To those who think Comey broke the law: what was the alternative? Should he have concealed pertinent information, and then been accused of breaking the law the other way? He had to be open about it.
The FBI should have taken action in July, if Clinton has been any normal Jane Doe they would have done.
Ugh.
I though we all agreed. Nissan staying is great, Q3 figures were reassuring.
But there's no decent trade case to be made for leaving the EU. And the idea that the Canadians would find the UK market more attractive than the EU market relies on a contortion of logic that amounts to self-deceit.
Next.
As for your good self and ad hominem; your first post was a rather good example. Besides, it would be hard for my post to be ad hominem against your own ad hominem post, which was essentially just "remainers stink!"
I will let my previous reply to Nick stand.
I'm not sure why we should accept a judgement that affects everyones prosperity and wellbeing on a prospectus whose veracity wouldn't on current rules be allowed in the classified ads of the Hartlipool Observer.
There are good reason's why we have rules preventing cigarette companies claiming smoking increases your lifespan.
The last European Parliament election was "won" by the EPP who got just over 38 million votes Europe wide, beating into second place the S&D who lost in a distant second place with only just over 40 million votes. As a result the EPP's winning candidate Junker got "elected" to form a Commission, made of people who didn't stand in that election. Zero votes were cast in the whole United Kingdom for the EPP.
Similarly, Nate Silver's latest article is predicated on Clinton winning North Carolina and Nevada but losing Florida, which would mean Trump would need either (1) Ohio, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin to scrape a victory or (2) Pennsylvania and New Hampshire for a draw:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-what-if-clinton-wins-north-carolina-and-loses-pennsylvania/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
Would be interesting if there are 15 years e-mails of the Clinton Foundation on that LapTop.
Checks Law Society and NY bar requirements. Is interested in your evidence.
In any case the age of the expert has passed, the age of the barrack room is upon us.