Miss Plato, the next things I'll be working on is a free abridged version and a paperback edition. An audiobook would likely depend on things going very well (way too early to say how that's going). I like the idea, but I've also got a lot on my plate (probably having 2-3 short stories as well as another novel next year).
On a double-related note, my own reading time is very short right now. I've just been reading a few percent at a time of the book I'm currently on. It's not ideal, but better than nothing.
I hasten to add that none of the characters in my books are based on persons here, and any coincidence of names is simply that.
Miss Plato, the next things I'll be working on is a free abridged version and a paperback edition. An audiobook would likely depend on things going very well (way too early to say how that's going). I like the idea, but I've also got a lot on my plate (probably having 2-3 short stories as well as another novel next year).
On a double-related note, my own reading time is very short right now. I've just been reading a few percent at a time of the book I'm currently on. It's not ideal, but better than nothing.
I hasten to add that none of the characters in my books are based on persons here, and any coincidence of names is simply that.
Did we ever find out who SeanT based a character on in 'The Ice Twins'? I think I guessed, but never saw it confirmed.
Jon Howarth #BREAKING: #Turkey President Erdogan threatens to open borders to migrants after EU Parliament vote. More to come...
I can foresee turkey becoming more and.more a problem. Dictator in charge, opposition "powers" led by an exiled Islamic extremist. 100,000s been purges from their jobs. It is the classic recipe for disaster.
And they are just about to join the EU!
LOL. One of the more egregious of the exaggerations of the campaign, in fairness.
I found the Turkey claim probably the most offensive part of our campaign, because - unlike with the 350m - it was a lie. There was, and is, absolutely no chance that Turkey will join the EU given: (a) the Turks don't want to; (b) the Turkish government would have to change beyond all recognition; and (c) EU countries would have to unanimously agree - and that includes Cyprus and Greece which would rather leave the EU than see the Turkey join.
That being said, the EU made the rod for their own back by acceding to US demands that Turkey be put on the theoretical membership track.
I don't see how the claim "We send £350m per week to the EU" could be regarded as anything other than a lie, given that we don't actually send £350m per week to the EU. As you well know, this figure includes the rebate, which never leaves our shores and is spent by us on other things.
As has been explained many times, the full £350m does leave every week, but every week we receive £80m. The £350m claim is true in the most basic sense, but it takes no account of context.
Leave's biggest lie is that leaving the EU is free of consequences, that being "in" the Single Market is simply a rhetorical statement that we don't need to bother with, and so on. The £350 million claim is an irrelevance.
Just as aside, there has been a lot of talk about Marine Le Pen outperforming her party. In Pas de Calais in 2015 in the Regional Elections, she got 40.6% in the first round, and 42.2% in the second. She added just 1.6% between the rounds, and that despite it being a two horse race with the Socialists, the Communists and the Greens dropping out. There is no evidence that the FN remains anything other than extremely transfer unfriendly.
Miss Plato, the next things I'll be working on is a free abridged version and a paperback edition. An audiobook would likely depend on things going very well (way too early to say how that's going). I like the idea, but I've also got a lot on my plate (probably having 2-3 short stories as well as another novel next year).
On a double-related note, my own reading time is very short right now. I've just been reading a few percent at a time of the book I'm currently on. It's not ideal, but better than nothing.
I hasten to add that none of the characters in my books are based on persons here, and any coincidence of names is simply that.
Did we ever find out who SeanT based a character on in 'The Ice Twins'? I think I guessed, but never saw it confirmed.
Just as aside, there has been a lot of talk about Marine Le Pen outperforming her party. In Pas de Calais in 2015 in the Regional Elections, she got 40.6% in the first round, and 42.2% in the second. She added just 1.6% between the rounds, and that despite it being a two horse race with the Socialists, the Communists and the Greens dropping out. There is no evidence that the FN remains anything other than extremely transfer unfriendly.
Turnout was up over 6% between the two rounds so she still put on a lot more votes than that implies. It was other voters turning out to stop her that kept the percentage down.
Jon Howarth #BREAKING: #Turkey President Erdogan threatens to open borders to migrants after EU Parliament vote. More to come...
I can foresee turkey becoming more and.more a problem. Dictator in charge, opposition "powers" led by an exiled Islamic extremist. 100,000s been purges from their jobs. It is the classic recipe for disaster.
And they are just about to join the EU!
LOL. One of the more egregious of the exaggerations of the campaign, in fairness.
I found the Turkey claim probably the most offensive part of our campaign, because - unlike with the 350m - it was a lie. There was, and is, absolutely no chance that Turkey will join the EU given: (a) the Turks don't want to; (b) the Turkish government would have to change beyond all recognition; and (c) EU countries would have to unanimously agree - and that includes Cyprus and Greece which would rather leave the EU than see the Turkey join.
That being said, the EU made the rod for their own back by acceding to US demands that Turkey be put on the theoretical membership track.
I don't see how the claim "We send £350m per week to the EU" could be regarded as anything other than a lie, given that we don't actually send £350m per week to the EU. As you well know, this figure includes the rebate, which never leaves our shores and is spent by us on other things.
As has been explained many times, the full £350m does leave every week, but every week we receive £80m. The £350m claim is true in the most basic sense, but it takes no account of context.
Telegraph The founder of Corona has left £2 million to every single resident of the impoverished Spanish village he grew up in https://t.co/ZlgoZGhT2o
Don't think that's a good thing.
Get that within a decade the village will have ceased to exist in anywhere near its current form.
"Record inflation hits Spanish village"
Quantitative easing Windfall cash only good enough for bankers eh, @Charles ?
It's not good for anyone, even banker
Edit : I see @Cyclefree agrees which is usually a good indication that I'm right. But this story ends up as tragedy. How many lottery jackpot winners make a good go of it?
Well how many do, Charles?
Don't worry, the headmasters of Eton and Winchester can still keep even millionaire knuckledraggers out.
Good for Antonino Fernandez. Nice to hear of someone who really hasn't forgotten where he came from.
Quite - urgh, all those oiks who can't cope with being given Loadsamoney - it could make them sad or ruin the cultural poverty they live in. Let's just give it to the Really Wealthy who know how to spend it on another yacht and Krug instead.
FFS.
Before you get on your high horse look at the comments. It's more about the impact on the community not the inability of individuals ability to spend money wiselt.
Giving a reasonable amount of money is good to avoid misery, and to open up options. It is also good to reward effort, risk and success.
But gifting large sums of money for nothing is IMHO the wrong thing to do, and not good for the wellbeing of the individual in receipt either.
I am sure tbat most of us could cope, indeed if any PBer's riches are weighing heavily upon them I would be very willing to relieve them of their burden. :-)
Jon Howarth #BREAKING: #Turkey President Erdogan threatens to open borders to migrants after EU Parliament vote. More to come...
I can foresee turkey becoming more and.more a problem. Dictator in charge, opposition "powers" led by an exiled Islamic extremist. 100,000s been purges from their jobs. It is the classic recipe for disaster.
And they are just about to join the EU!
LOL. One of the more egregious of the exaggerations of the campaign, in fairness.
I found the Turkey claim probably the most offensive part of our campaign, because - unlike with the 350m - it was a lie. There was, and is, absolutely no chance that Turkey will join the EU given: (a) the Turks don't want to; (b) the Turkish government would have to change beyond all recognition; and (c) EU countries would have to unanimously agree - and that includes Cyprus and Greece which would rather leave the EU than see the Turkey join.
That being said, the EU made the rod for their own back by acceding to US demands that Turkey be put on the theoretical membership track.
I don't see how the claim "We send £350m per week to the EU" could be regarded as anything other than a lie, given that we don't actually send £350m per week to the EU. As you well know, this figure includes the rebate, which never leaves our shores and is spent by us on other things.
As has been explained many times, the full £350m does leave every week, but every week we receive £80m. The £350m claim is true in the most basic sense, but it takes no account of context.
Nonsense. The rebate does not leave our shores. The £350m figure is a flat lie. It is incredible that people are still disputing this.
"A.10.4 The effect of the rebate is to reduce the amount of the UK’s monthly GNI-based payments to the EU Budget. It does not involve any transfer of money from the Commission or other member states to the Exchequer."
Just as aside, there has been a lot of talk about Marine Le Pen outperforming her party. In Pas de Calais in 2015 in the Regional Elections, she got 40.6% in the first round, and 42.2% in the second. She added just 1.6% between the rounds, and that despite it being a two horse race with the Socialists, the Communists and the Greens dropping out. There is no evidence that the FN remains anything other than extremely transfer unfriendly.
Turnout was up over 6% between the two rounds so she still put on a lot more votes than that implies. It was other voters turning out to stop her that kept the percentage down.
Sure, but that's likely to be the case if she's in the second round of the Presidential too. My point is this: in by far the best region of France for the FN, up against just a Les Republicains candidate, she was 16% behind and failed to improve her vote share between rounds,
Indeed, the FN's vote share - across the whole country - went down in the second round.
The study also found that these vote tabulators can be easily reprogrammed in seconds, using a laptop and the tabulator’s connection port, and that no trace of the action can be detected.
(Bangs his head against the wall)
FFS. I can't believe intelligent people actually bought such systems.
Note: I'm not saying there was any fraud; just that the system's really borken. And this matters: democracy relies on people believing the vote was fair. Such systems make it too easy to believe it is unfair, even if it isn't.
Talking about this today in the context of cash, which is another technology where the old paper-based system has properties that we can't yet adequately recreate digitally, and phasing out the old thing has very serious consequences for civil liberties and tyranny resistance.
We need a proper political campaign bringing together net-savvy people, who can see specifically what's wrong with these technologies as governments want to apply them, and older, non-technical people who are just more comfortable with the old thing. Between those groups I think you have a blocking minority, but it needs to be properly organized.
Jon Howarth #BREAKING: #Turkey President Erdogan threatens to open borders to migrants after EU Parliament vote. More to come...
I can foresee turkey becoming more and.more a problem. Dictator in charge, opposition "powers" led by an exiled Islamic extremist. 100,000s been purges from their jobs. It is the classic recipe for disaster.
And they are just about to join the EU!
LOL. One of the more egregious of the exaggerations of the campaign, in fairness.
I found the Turkey claim probably the most offensive part of our campaign, because - unlike with the 350m - it was a lie. There was, and is, absolutely no chance that Turkey will join the EU given: (a) the Turks don't want to; (b) the Turkish government would have to change beyond all recognition; and (c) EU countries would have to unanimously agree - and that includes Cyprus and Greece which would rather leave the EU than see the Turkey join.
That being said, the EU made the rod for their own back by acceding to US demands that Turkey be put on the theoretical membership track.
I don't see how the claim "We send £350m per week to the EU" could be regarded as anything other than a lie, given that we don't actually send £350m per week to the EU. As you well know, this figure includes the rebate, which never leaves our shores and is spent by us on other things.
As has been explained many times, the full £350m does leave every week, but every week we receive £80m. The £350m claim is true in the most basic sense, but it takes no account of context.
So we can spend it on the NHS then?
I never said that and spoke out against the figure on a number of occasions. The try figure if £210m per week was fair, but the £350m figure focus tested better AIUI because it was bigger and required the remain side to explain that it was "only £200m" which made them look ridiculous.
First Blair. Now Major. Obviously the establishment are re-mobilizing.
This is going to end in civil unrest isn't it?
No. It'll end with the ballot box. Farage is right: if Brexit Betrayed becomes a potent message, GE2020 will have fireworks. Personally, I think the Conservative Party will, one way or another, be able to apply sufficient pressure to the government to ensure that Brexit is delivered before the election, and delivered in a way that does deliver control on immigration, removal from the CJEU's writ and the end to the subscription fee. The establishment won't like that but the establishment would like the alternatives a damn sight less.
First Blair. Now Major. Obviously the establishment are re-mobilizing.
This is going to end in civil unrest isn't it?
No. It'll end with the ballot box. Farage is right: if Brexit Betrayed becomes a potent message, GE2020 will have fireworks. Personally, I think the Conservative Party will, one way or another, be able to apply sufficient pressure to the government to ensure that Brexit is delivered before the election, and delivered in a way that does deliver control on immigration, removal from the CJEU's writ and the end to the subscription fee. The establishment won't like that but the establishment would like the alternatives a damn sight less.
I suspect there will be a subscription fee, but that's another matter altogether...
On topic, the sooner we leave the better because delaying leaving now, delays our inevitable rejoining a few years later, replete with, inter alia, membership of the Euro, the EU army, and Schengen.
Jon Howarth #BREAKING: #Turkey President Erdogan threatens to open borders to migrants after EU Parliament vote. More to come...
I can foresee turkey becoming more and.more a problem. Dictator in charge, opposition "powers" led by an exiled Islamic extremist. 100,000s been purges from their jobs. It is the classic recipe for disaster.
And they are just about to join the EU!
LOL. One of the more egregious of the exaggerations of the campaign, in fairness.
I found the Turkey claim probably the most offensive part of our campaign, because - unlike with the 350m - it was a lie. There was, and is, absolutely no chance that Turkey will join the EU given: (a) the Turks don't want to; (b) the Turkish government would have to change beyond all recognition; and (c) EU countries would have to unanimously agree - and that includes Cyprus and Greece which would rather leave the EU than see the Turkey join.
That being said, the EU made the rod for their own back by acceding to US demands that Turkey be put on the theoretical membership track.
I don't see how the claim "We send £350m per week to the EU" could be regarded as anything other than a lie, given that we don't actually send £350m per week to the EU. As you well know, this figure includes the rebate, which never leaves our shores and is spent by us on other things.
As has been explained many times, the full £350m does leave every week, but every week we receive £80m. The £350m claim is true in the most basic sense, but it takes no account of context.
Just as aside, there has been a lot of talk about Marine Le Pen outperforming her party. In Pas de Calais in 2015 in the Regional Elections, she got 40.6% in the first round, and 42.2% in the second. She added just 1.6% between the rounds, and that despite it being a two horse race with the Socialists, the Communists and the Greens dropping out. There is no evidence that the FN remains anything other than extremely transfer unfriendly.
Turnout was up over 6% between the two rounds so she still put on a lot more votes than that implies. It was other voters turning out to stop her that kept the percentage down.
Sure, but that's likely to be the case if she's in the second round of the Presidential too. My point is this: in by far the best region of France for the FN, up against just a Les Republicains candidate, she was 16% behind and failed to improve her vote share between rounds,
Indeed, the FN's vote share - across the whole country - went down in the second round.
All that is true - but is it the case that the FN are still that transfer unfriendly if they are up against a Melanchon type candidate rather than a 'Les Republicains'. Just because the left will hold their nose and "vote for a crook rather than a fascist" I' m not sure that is follows that the 'right' will do likewise and "vote for a commie rather than a fascist"...
Jon Howarth #BREAKING: #Turkey President Erdogan threatens to open borders to migrants after EU Parliament vote. More to come...
I can foresee turkey becoming more and.more a problem. Dictator in charge, opposition "powers" led by an exiled Islamic extremist. 100,000s been purges from their jobs. It is the classic recipe for disaster.
And they are just about to join the EU!
LOL. One of the more egregious of the exaggerations of the campaign, in fairness.
I found the Turkey claim probably the most offensive part of our campaign, because - unlike with the 350m - it was a lie. There was, and is, absolutely no chance that Turkey will join the EU given: (a) the Turks don't want to; (b) the Turkish government would have to change beyond all recognition; and (c) EU countries would have to unanimously agree - and that includes Cyprus and Greece which would rather leave the EU than see the Turkey join.
That being said, the EU made the rod for their own back by acceding to US demands that Turkey be put on the theoretical membership track.
I don't see how the claim "We send £350m per week to the EU" could be regarded as anything other than a lie, given that we don't actually send £350m per week to the EU. As you well know, this figure includes the rebate, which never leaves our shores and is spent by us on other things.
As has been explained many times, the full £350m does leave every week, but every week we receive £80m. The £350m claim is true in the most basic sense, but it takes no account of context.
Nonsense. The rebate does not leave our shores. The £350m figure is a flat lie. It is incredible that people are still disputing this.
"A.10.4 The effect of the rebate is to reduce the amount of the UK’s monthly GNI-based payments to the EU Budget. It does not involve any transfer of money from the Commission or other member states to the Exchequer."
"Of course we would win Indyref2. We will definitely win it. When it happens. Which is not now. No need for it now. But we would win, if it was now. But it isn't. So..."
Once we trigger Article 50 our EU partners will not allow any backtracking.
Any second referendum, would be a choice between leaving with the terms negotiated and leaving under WTO terms.
Will Le Pen win? This is my current list of indicators to look for. I reckon a Le Pen win is equivalent to a Le Pen score of 45%+ in R1. I plan to make the investment decision before the end of the year, when her price will probably still be low, but the Dutch election in March is included for reference.
Summary
1) FREXIT big in the French media
2) SUPPORT FROM LEADING FIGURES OUTSIDE THE FN, explicit or otherwise, inside or outside France; not necessarily many, but some; statements against Le Pen outside France by those who might conceivably support her, such as Nigel Farage, don't matter so much
3) PERCEIVED FEASIBILITY: "financial, business and diplomatic circles have come to terms with the possibility of a Le Pen presidency"
4) ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED MOMENTUM: TALK OF A SURGE OF "POPULISM" AND POSSIBLE END OF EU:
* (4 Dec) Hofer win in Austria and talk of Oexit; * (4 Dec) "No" in Italian referendum and talk of Italexit; * (15 Mar) Wilders win (on some definition) in Netherlands, talk of Nexit;
* reporting of "the nth country to fall to right-wing populism", "populism’s seemingly unstoppable rise across the western world"; cf. propaganda for gay marriage in 2001-15; but don't be too focused on British "watch the excitable fuzzy-wuzzies" stories
5) HER KIND OF NEWS STORY: terrorism, Arabs, migrants - stories communicating with big emotional impact that policy has failed for a long time and something must be done
6) POLLS: predicted R1 40% in at least one serious poll
Micro-summary EU BREAKUP, THE ARABS, POLLS
Worth remembering that the FPO policy is not to leave the EU or even the Euro, it is to split the Eurozone into a Northern (Hard) Euro and a Southern (Soft) Euro.
I also think you massively over-estimate the FN's chances. MLP has made no progress in the polls in the last three years in France, unlike every other populist leader. Her party has also repeatedly underperformed its poll scores - unlike every other populist group. And in the second round of each of the French elections in the last two years it has actually lost share.
And yet her R2 poll scores for the presidential, especially against Hollande and Sarkozy but also against Juppé and Fillon, have been higher than her R1 ones. Fillon is on a roll at the moment, and is rightly the favourite for now, but can she paint him as part of what voters should reject? Possibly, given that he was Sarkozy's right-hand man throughout his five-year term.
Jon Howarth #BREAKING: #Turkey President Erdogan threatens to open borders to migrants after EU Parliament vote. More to come...
I can foresee turkey becoming more and.more a problem. Dictator in charge, opposition "powers" led by an exiled Islamic extremist. 100,000s been purges from their jobs. It is the classic recipe for disaster.
And they are just about to join the EU!
LOL. One of the more egregious of the exaggerations of the campaign, in fairness.
I found the Turkey claim probably the most offensive part of our campaign, because - unlike with the 350m - it was a lie. There was, and is, absolutely no chance that Turkey will join the EU given: (a) the Turks don't want to; (b) the Turkish government would have to change beyond all recognition; and (c) EU countries would have to unanimously agree - and that includes Cyprus and Greece which would rather leave the EU than see the Turkey join.
That being said, the EU made the rod for their own back by acceding to US demands that Turkey be put on the theoretical membership track.
I don't see how the claim "We send £350m per week to the EU" could be regarded as anything other than a lie, given that we don't actually send £350m per week to the EU. As you well know, this figure includes the rebate, which never leaves our shores and is spent by us on other things.
As has been explained many times, the full £350m does leave every week, but every week we receive £80m. The £350m claim is true in the most basic sense, but it takes no account of context.
Nonsense. The rebate does not leave our shores. The £350m figure is a flat lie. It is incredible that people are still disputing this.
"A.10.4 The effect of the rebate is to reduce the amount of the UK’s monthly GNI-based payments to the EU Budget. It does not involve any transfer of money from the Commission or other member states to the Exchequer."
First Blair. Now Major. Obviously the establishment are re-mobilizing.
This is going to end in civil unrest isn't it?
No. It'll end with the ballot box. Farage is right: if Brexit Betrayed becomes a potent message, GE2020 will have fireworks. Personally, I think the Conservative Party will, one way or another, be able to apply sufficient pressure to the government to ensure that Brexit is delivered before the election, and delivered in a way that does deliver control on immigration, removal from the CJEU's writ and the end to the subscription fee. The establishment won't like that but the establishment would like the alternatives a damn sight less.
It will be Hard Brexit, albeit probably with tariff free acces for manufactured goods and perhaps agricultural goods. Soft Brexit is a non-starter as it fails to address the issues that caused us to vote Leave as a nation.
I think in another decade or so a more positive and engaged approach to Europe may well be possible, but not yet.
Robert Kimbell Words and electioneering. Fillon: “France isn’t a multicultural nation. When you come to someone’s house, by courtesy, you don’t take over.” https://t.co/I7QjQxCy2K
Is Pannick officially our cleverest lawyer now, since the last one became a judge?
And there I think lies the issue with the original judgement. It looks at conferred rights, rather than just the intent of legislation.
Other treaties that are ratified by the house are still not legislation, but this judgement would tend to give them that weight, when that is not what was intended.
so the judgement should be set aside and one which restricts the right of prerogative to areas that are not 'Legislated' should be inserted. The result in the area debated is the same, but the judgement would then have fewer unforeseen effects.
Mr. Herdson, jein. If people conclude voting is worthless (because we voted to leave and don't) then they may well decide voting again is foolish.
True, but that's a big 'if'. There's already enough of a narrative that 'it was only an advisory referendum' and 'parliament is sovereign' to run a second campaign at a general election on 'you've sent the message, now send the people to do it'. Were that too to fail then we would end in a very dangerous place where whole groups became so disillusioned with democracy that violence could well be seen by them as a legitimate response.
First Blair. Now Major. Obviously the establishment are re-mobilizing.
This is going to end in civil unrest isn't it?
No. It'll end with the ballot box. Farage is right: if Brexit Betrayed becomes a potent message, GE2020 will have fireworks. Personally, I think the Conservative Party will, one way or another, be able to apply sufficient pressure to the government to ensure that Brexit is delivered before the election, and delivered in a way that does deliver control on immigration, removal from the CJEU's writ and the end to the subscription fee. The establishment won't like that but the establishment would like the alternatives a damn sight less.
I suspect there will be a subscription fee, but that's another matter altogether...
You might well be right, and a relatively small fee could probably be justified although it will leave a bad taste and provide something for the Purists to keep fighting on. It'd need a big quid pro quo though in terms of trade.
First Blair. Now Major. Obviously the establishment are re-mobilizing.
This is going to end in civil unrest isn't it?
No. It'll end with the ballot box. Farage is right: if Brexit Betrayed becomes a potent message, GE2020 will have fireworks. Personally, I think the Conservative Party will, one way or another, be able to apply sufficient pressure to the government to ensure that Brexit is delivered before the election, and delivered in a way that does deliver control on immigration, removal from the CJEU's writ and the end to the subscription fee. The establishment won't like that but the establishment would like the alternatives a damn sight less.
Agreed- except if Brexit isn't being delivered- the next GE will be before 2020 I think...
Robert Kimbell Words and electioneering. Fillon: “France isn’t a multicultural nation. When you come to someone’s house, by courtesy, you don’t take over.” https://t.co/I7QjQxCy2K
Shame the French didn't think the same in the 1840s when they took over Algeria ...
Jon Howarth #BREAKING: #Turkey President Erdogan threatens to open borders to migrants after EU Parliament vote. More to come...
I can foresee turkey becoming more and.more a problem. Dictator in charge, opposition "powers" led by an exiled Islamic extremist. 100,000s been purges from their jobs. It is the classic recipe for disaster.
And they are just about to join the EU!
LOL. One of the more egregious of the exaggerations of the campaign, in fairness.
I found the Turkey claim probably the most offensive part of our campaign, because - unlike with the 350m - it was a lie. There was, and is, absolutely no chance that Turkey will join the EU given: (a) the Turks don't want to; (b) the Turkish government would have to change beyond all recognition; and (c) EU countries would have to unanimously agree - and that includes Cyprus and Greece which would rather leave the EU than see the Turkey join.
That being said, the EU made the rod for their own back by acceding to US demands that Turkey be put on the theoretical membership track.
I don't see how the claim "We send £350m per week to the EU" could be regarded as anything other than a lie, given that we don't actually send £350m per week to the EU. As you well know, this figure includes the rebate, which never leaves our shores and is spent by us on other things.
As has been explained many times, the full £350m does leave every week, but every week we receive £80m. The £350m claim is true in the most basic sense, but it takes no account of context.
Nonsense. The rebate does not leave our shores. The £350m figure is a flat lie. It is incredible that people are still disputing this.
"A.10.4 The effect of the rebate is to reduce the amount of the UK’s monthly GNI-based payments to the EU Budget. It does not involve any transfer of money from the Commission or other member states to the Exchequer."
Mr FeersumEnjineeya is quite right with this. The UK Pink Book sets it out quite clearly. The 2015 total figure for liabilities was £19.59 billion to the EU but we only actually hand over £14.68 billion. What is known as the Fontainebleau Abatement is not a refund but a discount prior to us sending any money out of the country. As you can see it is not even officially known as a rebate as the money never gets paid in the first place.
Robert Kimbell Words and electioneering. Fillon: “France isn’t a multicultural nation. When you come to someone’s house, by courtesy, you don’t take over.” https://t.co/I7QjQxCy2K
France has never been multicultural, always being explicitly assimilationalist. Indeed this is why it does not collect data on ethnic background and religions of its people. They are simply French.
Mr. Herdson, niceties that won't fly. Asking the people their opinion then ignoring it or trying to gerrymander the result will only increase the bitterness between the two factions.
Miss Plato, if Blair et al. had taken that stance we might not have quite so many enclaves here.
If my mother-in-law, 89 and living only on the state pension (which she does not spend all of, bless her), was suddenly handed £2 million I genuinely think the shock and then the worry of it might kill her. She would almost definitely give it all away to her children and grandchildren. You get to a certain age, I think, and you are so used to your established level of spending and way of living that additional money really does make no difference - even if it should.
I remember feeling grateful - if sad, on receiving a modest bequest from my grandmother - I wished she'd spent it on herself.....
My mother-in-law actually saves money from her pension each week. She probably spends only £40 or so. She owns the cottage she has lived in since the early 1950s, has her heating oil paid for by the winter fuel allowance, gets a free TV licence and has her travel pass for the once a week bus, so beyond that her only outgoings are really electricity and food. She doesn't need anything else and at her age has no wish to travel or buy anything new. It's company she would love more of. She comes to ours every weekend, but during the week - apart from her Wednesday visit to town on the bus - she is pretty much alone. There's no way she'd move though.
I was translating an essay on a piece by Keynes on what the world might look like today - it makes an interesting read:
He correctly predicts a great increase in wealth, but arguably incorrectly speculates that this will make most people content with material wealth and turning their attention to other things - I don't unfortunately think your admirable mother-in-law is entirely typical in that. Incidentally, there's a passing remark which seems to be intended merely as a harmless quirky observation but would I think now be seen as anti-semitic - an example of the casual generalisations about Jews which were common bfore the war before the horrors of the Holocaust drove that sort of talk out of polite society..
Jon Howarth #BREAKING: #Turkey President Erdogan threatens to open borders to migrants after EU Parliament vote. More to come...
I can foresee turkey becoming more and.more a problem. Dictator in charge, opposition "powers" led by an exiled Islamic extremist. 100,000s been purges from their jobs. It is the classic recipe for disaster.
And they are just about to join the EU!
LOL. One of the more egregious of the exaggerations of the campaign, in fairness.
I found the Turkey claim probably the most offensive part of our campaign, because - unlike with the 350m - it was a lie. There was, and is, absolutely no chance that Turkey will join the EU given: (a) the Turks don't want to; (b) the Turkish government would have to change beyond all recognition; and (c) EU countries would have to unanimously agree - and that includes Cyprus and Greece which would rather leave the EU than see the Turkey join.
That being said, the EU made the rod for their own back by acceding to US demands that Turkey be put on the theoretical membership track.
I don't see how the claim "We send £350m per week to the EU" could be regarded as anything other than a lie, given that we don't actually send £350m per week to the EU. As you well know, this figure includes the rebate, which never leaves our shores and is spent by us on other things.
As has been explained many times, the full £350m does leave every week, but every week we receive £80m. The £350m claim is true in the most basic sense, but it takes no account of context.
Nonsense. The rebate does not leave our shores. The £350m figure is a flat lie. It is incredible that people are still disputing this.
"A.10.4 The effect of the rebate is to reduce the amount of the UK’s monthly GNI-based payments to the EU Budget. It does not involve any transfer of money from the Commission or other member states to the Exchequer."
First Blair. Now Major. Obviously the establishment are re-mobilizing.
This is going to end in civil unrest isn't it?
No. It'll end with the ballot box. Farage is right: if Brexit Betrayed becomes a potent message, GE2020 will have fireworks. Personally, I think the Conservative Party will, one way or another, be able to apply sufficient pressure to the government to ensure that Brexit is delivered before the election, and delivered in a way that does deliver control on immigration, removal from the CJEU's writ and the end to the subscription fee. The establishment won't like that but the establishment would like the alternatives a damn sight less.
I suspect there will be a subscription fee, but that's another matter altogether...
You might well be right, and a relatively small fee could probably be justified although it will leave a bad taste and provide something for the Purists to keep fighting on. It'd need a big quid pro quo though in terms of trade.
There are certain programmes we'll probably want to opt-in (CERN for example) even under the hardest of Brexit scenarios.
I can foresee turkey becoming more and.more a problem. Dictator in charge, opposition "powers" led by an exiled Islamic extremist. 100,000s been purges from their jobs. It is the classic recipe for disaster.
And they are just about to join the EU!
LOL. One of the more egregious of the exaggerations of the campaign, in fairness.
I found the Turkey claim probably the most offensive part of our campaign, because - unlike with the 350m - it was a lie. There was, and is, absolutely no chance that Turkey will join the EU given: (a) the Turks don't want to; (b) the Turkish government would have to change beyond all recognition; and (c) EU countries would have to unanimously agree - and that includes Cyprus and Greece which would rather leave the EU than see the Turkey join.
That being said, the EU made the rod for their own back by acceding to US demands that Turkey be put on the theoretical membership track.
I don't see how the claim "We send £350m per week to the EU" could be regarded as anything other than a lie, given that we don't actually send £350m per week to the EU. As you well know, this figure includes the rebate, which never leaves our shores and is spent by us on other things.
As has been explained many times, the full £350m does leave every week, but every week we receive £80m. The £350m claim is true in the most basic sense, but it takes no account of context.
Nonsense. The rebate does not leave our shores. The £350m figure is a flat lie. It is incredible that people are still disputing this.
"A.10.4 The effect of the rebate is to reduce the amount of the UK’s monthly GNI-based payments to the EU Budget. It does not involve any transfer of money from the Commission or other member states to the Exchequer."
Mr FeersumEnjineeya is quite right with this. The UK Pink Book sets it out quite clearly. The 2015 total figure for liabilities was £19.59 billion to the EU but we only actually hand over £14.68 billion. What is known as the Fontainebleau Abatement is not a refund but a discount prior to us sending any money out of the country. As you can see it is not even officially known as a rebate as the money never gets paid in the first place.
Once we trigger Article 50 our EU partners will not allow any backtracking.
I don't think this is true. Brexit is a huge, expensive PITA for everybody. If the British said sorry, just forget it, everyone would be exasperated but they wouldn't try to force Britain out.
The caveat is that without a second referendum it might look like the British were just delaying the inevitable, which wouldn't be popular.
First Blair. Now Major. Obviously the establishment are re-mobilizing.
This is going to end in civil unrest isn't it?
No. It'll end with the ballot box. Farage is right: if Brexit Betrayed becomes a potent message, GE2020 will have fireworks. Personally, I think the Conservative Party will, one way or another, be able to apply sufficient pressure to the government to ensure that Brexit is delivered before the election, and delivered in a way that does deliver control on immigration, removal from the CJEU's writ and the end to the subscription fee. The establishment won't like that but the establishment would like the alternatives a damn sight less.
I'm not sure.
The irresistible force (the public will via the referendum result) seems to meeting the immovable object (establishment opinion to REMAIN despite LEAVE winning the referendum) and I'm not sure at the moment quite how we square to circle to keep everyone (broadly) together.
I'm very worried about where this all going right now. Perhaps when A50 is finally triggered the agenda will move on to more positive territory (what leaving will look like) but at the moment it feels like we're bogged down with doom and gloom while both sides are increasingly angrily shouting at one another...
Once we trigger Article 50 our EU partners will not allow any backtracking.
I don't think this is true. Brexit is a huge, expensive PITA for everybody. If the British said sorry, just forget it, everyone would be exasperated but they wouldn't try to force Britain out.
The caveat is that without a second referendum it might look like the British were just delaying the inevitable, which wouldn't be popular.
On the contrary - if the EU could get Britain to change its mind, then it could do anything it wanted without ever having the fear of a member leaving, ever again. If Britain, it's most internationally successful member cannot escape, then what hope for anyone else.
From there it's straight to the final treaty, and full federalism.
Once we trigger Article 50 our EU partners will not allow any backtracking.
I don't think this is true. Brexit is a huge, expensive PITA for everybody. If the British said sorry, just forget it, everyone would be exasperated but they wouldn't try to force Britain out.
The caveat is that without a second referendum it might look like the British were just delaying the inevitable, which wouldn't be popular.
A second referendum on Hard Brexit (the only sort that is viable) vs Remain would be problematic for all sorts of reasons, but is the only viable way of staying in. It would require the EU27 to unanimously support us staying in, and that is not something guaranteed. It is far more likely to get the response "you made your Brexit, now lie in it"
If my mother-in-law, 89 and living only on the state pension (which she does not spend all of, bless her), was suddenly handed £2 million I genuinely think the shock and then the worry of it might kill her. She would almost definitely give it all away to her children and grandchildren. You get to a certain age, I think, and you are so used to your established level of spending and way of living that additional money really does make no difference - even if it should.
I remember feeling grateful - if sad, on receiving a modest bequest from my grandmother - I wished she'd spent it on herself.....
I was translating an essay on a piece by Keynes on what the world might look like today - it makes an interesting read:
He correctly predicts a great increase in wealth, but arguably incorrectly speculates that this will make most people content with material wealth and turning their attention to other things - I don't unfortunately think your admirable mother-in-law is entirely typical in that. Incidentally, there's a passing remark which seems to be intended merely as a harmless quirky observation but would I think now be seen as anti-semitic - an example of the casual generalisations about Jews which were common bfore the war before the horrors of the Holocaust drove that sort of talk out of polite society..
It's a bit like all those Tomorrow World's back in the 70s which though we would all be people of lesiure as robots do all our jobs.
Well looks like robots will soon (and already are) doing that, but if anything our lives are getting too complicated.
Some humourous sections in that Keynes article, like
'What is the result? In spite of an enormous growth in the population of the world, which it has been necessary to equip with houses and machines, the average standard of life in Europe and the United States has been raised, I think, about fourfold. The growth of capital has been on a scale which is far beyond a hundredfold of what any previous age had known. And from now on we need not expect so great an increase of population. '
Yeah, that 'not expect so great an increase of population' didn't really happen did it.
First Blair. Now Major. Obviously the establishment are re-mobilizing.
This is going to end in civil unrest isn't it?
No. It'll end with the ballot box. Farage is right: if Brexit Betrayed becomes a potent message, GE2020 will have fireworks. Personally, I think the Conservative Party will, one way or another, be able to apply sufficient pressure to the government to ensure that Brexit is delivered before the election, and delivered in a way that does deliver control on immigration, removal from the CJEU's writ and the end to the subscription fee. The establishment won't like that but the establishment would like the alternatives a damn sight less.
I suspect there will be a subscription fee, but that's another matter altogether...
You might well be right, and a relatively small fee could probably be justified although it will leave a bad taste and provide something for the Purists to keep fighting on. It'd need a big quid pro quo though in terms of trade.
There are certain programmes we'll probably want to opt-in (CERN for example) even under the hardest of Brexit scenarios.
Do you want to include that under an EU fee?
CERN is nothing to do with the EU.
As with all these organisations (CERN, ESO, ESA), if you have large-scale research program in particle physics or astronomy, it makes sense to join.
Some EU nations do not, and have not joined (Ireland is not a member of ESO or CERN). Some non-EU nations do, and have joined (Norway is a member of ESO and CERN).
Once we trigger Article 50 our EU partners will not allow any backtracking.
I don't think this is true. Brexit is a huge, expensive PITA for everybody. If the British said sorry, just forget it, everyone would be exasperated but they wouldn't try to force Britain out.
The caveat is that without a second referendum it might look like the British were just delaying the inevitable, which wouldn't be popular.
A second referendum on Hard Brexit (the only sort that is viable) vs Remain would be problematic for all sorts of reasons, but is the only viable way of staying in. It would require the EU27 to unanimously support us staying in, and that is not something guaranteed. It is far more likely to get the response "you made your Brexit, now lie in it"
And thats the Gordian Knot of a second referendum isn't it. 'what happens if we vote no after article 50' is a question which cannot be answered.
Just as aside, there has been a lot of talk about Marine Le Pen outperforming her party. In Pas de Calais in 2015 in the Regional Elections, she got 40.6% in the first round, and 42.2% in the second. She added just 1.6% between the rounds, and that despite it being a two horse race with the Socialists, the Communists and the Greens dropping out. There is no evidence that the FN remains anything other than extremely transfer unfriendly.
Turnout was up over 6% between the two rounds so she still put on a lot more votes than that implies. It was other voters turning out to stop her that kept the percentage down.
Sure, but that's likely to be the case if she's in the second round of the Presidential too. My point is this: in by far the best region of France for the FN, up against just a Les Republicains candidate, she was 16% behind and failed to improve her vote share between rounds,
Indeed, the FN's vote share - across the whole country - went down in the second round.
So the FN's vote share went down while MLP's vote share went up? Relevant don't you think?
To be clear I share the view that she won't win but I think you're guilty of underestimating her as an individual.
Robert Kimbell Words and electioneering. Fillon: “France isn’t a multicultural nation. When you come to someone’s house, by courtesy, you don’t take over.” https://t.co/I7QjQxCy2K
Wow! So who are Arab and Muslim citizens of France supposed to vote for in the second round, if it's Fillon versus Le Pen?
It is possible to be so stinky that even if you hand out clothespegs people won't vote for you.
Robert Kimbell Words and electioneering. Fillon: “France isn’t a multicultural nation. When you come to someone’s house, by courtesy, you don’t take over.” https://t.co/I7QjQxCy2K
France has never been multicultural, always being explicitly assimilationalist. Indeed this is why it does not collect data on ethnic background and religions of its people. They are simply French.
Arguably this has not worked out very well.
Many aren't seen as "French" even officially. About half of the Muslim residents in France aren't French citizens. (Source.)
If the EU knows there's a second vote then that's a huge incentive for them to give us the worst possible terms not because they'll be ever implemented but because they'll deter us from leaving.
Once we trigger Article 50 our EU partners will not allow any backtracking.
I don't think this is true. Brexit is a huge, expensive PITA for everybody. If the British said sorry, just forget it, everyone would be exasperated but they wouldn't try to force Britain out.
The caveat is that without a second referendum it might look like the British were just delaying the inevitable, which wouldn't be popular.
A second referendum on Hard Brexit (the only sort that is viable) vs Remain would be problematic for all sorts of reasons, but is the only viable way of staying in. It would require the EU27 to unanimously support us staying in, and that is not something guaranteed. It is far more likely to get the response "you made your Brexit, now lie in it"
And thats the Gordian Knot of a second referendum isn't it. 'what happens if we vote no after article 50' is a question which cannot be answered.
'Hard Brexit' is not the only offer on the table - so the entire point is moot.
You're usually easy-going and this isn't meant personally.
I do sense a different mood in the country lately.
There are a 'set' of liberal values and I agree with most of them. But it's no longer a choice anymore. Any deviation from the stated norm is met with insult, rancour and the full weight of the so-called elite. I was happy to vote Labour (Worzel included) when Maggie was PM and I suspect I'm probably a natural contrarian. Despite being fully in favour of Europe in 1975, I was temped to side with Tony Benn et al only because it was such a one-sided debate.
I voted Ukip at the last election, despite voting solidly LD since 2001.
It's like being presented with a breakfast you like every day, but every so often another item is added. Not only must you eat it, you must say how much you enjoy it. Failure will result in cries of something-ist. Even if I do like these values, I think I'm allowed an opinion. Especially when the opinion-formers consider themselves to be superior and above argument.
I'm fully in favour of keeping our 2% pledge for foreign aid. Many disagree and I respect their reservations. They're not necessarily racist Nazis.
To be honest, I have little respect for people who don't see that insulting anyone who disagrees is a way to change minds. I'd vote against them on principle. What great life experiences do they have? What do they know of England who only London know?
Trump is a blow-hard loon but I'd vote for him over a self-obsessed luvvie who thinks they're important.
I'm happy to eat most of the liberal breakfast, but if they try to make it compulsory, they can stick it up your arses.
I think in another decade or so a more positive and engaged approach to Europe the UK may well be possible, but not yet.
FTFY
Same thing. It takes two to tango.
De Gaulle was right when he said "Non".
If Britain hadn't head its head up the US bum, De Gaulle would have said "Oui". The earlier option of Britain uniting with France was a great missed opportunity.
If the EU knows there's a second vote then that's a huge incentive for them to give us the worst possible terms not because they'll be ever implemented but because they'll deter us from leaving.
Doesn't the whole 'worst possible terms' discussion expose the hole at the centre of the leave argument? If you want hard Brexit then their worst possible terms are your best possible terms and if you think otherwise then you don't really believe your own rhetoric.
Once we trigger Article 50 our EU partners will not allow any backtracking.
I don't think this is true. Brexit is a huge, expensive PITA for everybody. If the British said sorry, just forget it, everyone would be exasperated but they wouldn't try to force Britain out.
The caveat is that without a second referendum it might look like the British were just delaying the inevitable, which wouldn't be popular.
A second referendum on Hard Brexit (the only sort that is viable) vs Remain would be problematic for all sorts of reasons, but is the only viable way of staying in. It would require the EU27 to unanimously support us staying in, and that is not something guaranteed. It is far more likely to get the response "you made your Brexit, now lie in it"
I think there's a bit of room between "support" and "would not oppose". Bear in mind it's not just British people who have to lie in the bed; Brexit futzes around with the rights of people from all over Europe, and causes disruption to all kinds of businesses. Every country would have a small minority who would get extremely annoyed if their government forced an unnecessary Brexit, against a largely disinterested group who were a bit meh about the whole thing. So I think that aspect of it would go OK.
The problem with the second referendum scenario is simply that the Tory party probably won't want to do it, and if they do the voters will probably just vote Leave again, since they don't really like the EU. Also the Leave side would claim that the deal on offer wasn't the real deal, and that Britain would get a better one after they voted Definitely Leave I Mean It This Time.
Robert Kimbell Words and electioneering. Fillon: “France isn’t a multicultural nation. When you come to someone’s house, by courtesy, you don’t take over.” https://t.co/I7QjQxCy2K
Wow! So who are Arab and Muslim citizens of France supposed to vote for in the second round, if it's Fillon versus Le Pen?
It is possible to be so stinky that even if you hand out clothespegs people won't vote for you.
Robert Kimbell Words and electioneering. Fillon: “France isn’t a multicultural nation. When you come to someone’s house, by courtesy, you don’t take over.” https://t.co/I7QjQxCy2K
France has never been multicultural, always being explicitly assimilationalist. Indeed this is why it does not collect data on ethnic background and religions of its people. They are simply French.
Arguably this has not worked out very well.
Many aren't seen as "French" even officially. About half of the Muslim residents in France aren't French citizens. (Source.)
I am not disputing that, but French government policy has been explicitly against multiculturalism. Religion and Ancestry are officially private matters. France is explicitly assimilationist in policy (though clearly not in practice).
I think in another decade or so a more positive and engaged approach to Europe the UK may well be possible, but not yet.
FTFY
Same thing. It takes two to tango.
De Gaulle was right when he said "Non".
If Britain hadn't head its head up the US bum, he would have said "Oui". The option of Britain uniting with France was a great missed opportunity.
Yes, the history of the EU would have been very different if we'd drawn the same lessons from Suez as the French did. The terms would have been set by the Anglo-French engine all along, which as the two great historic democracies in Europe is how it should have been.
Mr. Glenn, both sides are large and loose coalitions of people. I've said before that whilst I think we should leave the customs union I'm otherwise pretty relaxed and flexible about the spectrum of possible options we could have in most areas.
Jon Howarth #BREAKING: #Turkey President Erdogan threatens to open borders to migrants after EU Parliament vote. More to come...
I can foresee turkey becoming more and.more a problem. Dictator in charge, opposition "powers" led by an exiled Islamic extremist. 100,000s been purges from their jobs. It is the classic recipe for disaster.
And they are just about to join the EU!
LOL. One of the more egregious of the exaggerations of the campaign, in fairness.
That being said, the EU made the rod for their own back by acceding to US demands that Turkey be put on the theoretical membership track.
I don't see how the claim "We send £350m per week to the EU" could be regarded as anything other than a lie, given that we don't actually send £350m per week to the EU. As you well know, this figure includes the rebate, which never leaves our shores and is spent by us on other things.
As has been explained many times, the full £350m does leave every week, but every week we receive £80m. The £350m claim is true in the most basic sense, but it takes no account of context.
Nonsense. The rebate does not leave our shores. The £350m figure is a flat lie. It is incredible that people are still disputing this.
"A.10.4 The effect of the rebate is to reduce the amount of the UK’s monthly GNI-based payments to the EU Budget. It does not involve any transfer of money from the Commission or other member states to the Exchequer."
Mr FeersumEnjineeya is quite right with this. The UK Pink Book sets it out quite clearly. The 2015 total figure for liabilities was £19.59 billion to the EU but we only actually hand over £14.68 billion. What is known as the Fontainebleau Abatement is not a refund but a discount prior to us sending any money out of the country. As you can see it is not even officially known as a rebate as the money never gets paid in the first place.
Don't other EU countries continually argue for the UK abatement to be reduced or abolished whenever treaty or other negotiations take place? I recall Blair gave away some of it in return for some vague EU commitment to change the Common Agricultural Policy which never happened.
Once we trigger Article 50 our EU partners will not allow any backtracking.
I don't think this is true. Brexit is a huge, expensive PITA for everybody. If the British said sorry, just forget it, everyone would be exasperated but they wouldn't try to force Britain out.
The caveat is that without a second referendum it might look like the British were just delaying the inevitable, which wouldn't be popular.
A second referendum on Hard Brexit (the only sort that is viable) vs Remain would be problematic for all sorts of reasons, but is the only viable way of staying in. It would require the EU27 to unanimously support us staying in, and that is not something guaranteed. It is far more likely to get the response "you made your Brexit, now lie in it"
And thats the Gordian Knot of a second referendum isn't it. 'what happens if we vote no after article 50' is a question which cannot be answered.
'Hard Brexit' is not the only offer on the table - so the entire point is moot.
If the EU knows there's a second vote then that's a huge incentive for them to give us the worst possible terms not because they'll be ever implemented but because they'll deter us from leaving.
Doesn't the whole 'worst possible terms' discussion expose the hole at the centre of the leave argument? If you want hard Brexit then their worst possible terms are your best possible terms and if you think otherwise then you don't really believe your own rhetoric.
No - the best possible terms is a free trade agreement on goods (which can be agreed by QMV) and an agreement on financial services (which will be UV).
Next down the list would be EEA interim while arranging the latter.
worst would be full WTO Brexit without MRA/Customs process harmonisation.
There will be shades of grey inbetween, as there is a need for UK funding into certain projects and a desire for us to be part of them from both sides, single European Sky for example.
Once we trigger Article 50 our EU partners will not allow any backtracking.
I don't think this is true. Brexit is a huge, expensive PITA for everybody. If the British said sorry, just forget it, everyone would be exasperated but they wouldn't try to force Britain out.
The caveat is that without a second referendum it might look like the British were just delaying the inevitable, which wouldn't be popular.
A second referendum on Hard Brexit (the only sort that is viable) vs Remain would be problematic for all sorts of reasons, but is the only viable way of staying in. It would require the EU27 to unanimously support us staying in, and that is not something guaranteed. It is far more likely to get the response "you made your Brexit, now lie in it"
And thats the Gordian Knot of a second referendum isn't it. 'what happens if we vote no after article 50' is a question which cannot be answered.
'Hard Brexit' is not the only offer on the table - so the entire point is moot.
Is it? Does Soft Brexit actually exist at all?
Yes there's certainly degrees of agreement that can be reached between being a member and being outside with no formal treaties of any nature.
Mr Wild, you should get your mother in law some help and company. Plenty of care providers for not only for practical help but also just sitting and chatting. Look into the support the local authority provides.
First Blair. Now Major. Obviously the establishment are re-mobilizing.
This is going to end in civil unrest isn't it?
No. It'll end with the ballot box. Farage is right: if Brexit Betrayed becomes a potent message, GE2020 will have fireworks. Personally, I think the Conservative Party will, one way or another, be able to apply sufficient pressure to the government to ensure that Brexit is delivered before the election, and delivered in a way that does deliver control on immigration, removal from the CJEU's writ and the end to the subscription fee. The establishment won't like that but the establishment would like the alternatives a damn sight less.
Time though is running out for Mrs May to sail smoothly through. By failing to build in "gains" from Brexit into the financial modelling due to her not settling a clean break with the EU into the assumptions she ends up with the worst of both worlds. Mildly pessimistic forecasts, spending more on baubles and a step change downwards in Govt debt which Remainers can blame on Brexit. The Treasury of course welcome this outcome as it avoids them admitting how wrong their project fear spreadsheets were.
Robert Kimbell Words and electioneering. Fillon: “France isn’t a multicultural nation. When you come to someone’s house, by courtesy, you don’t take over.” https://t.co/I7QjQxCy2K
Wow! So who are Arab and Muslim citizens of France supposed to vote for in the second round, if it's Fillon versus Le Pen?
It is possible to be so stinky that even if you hand out clothespegs people won't vote for you.
Robert Kimbell Words and electioneering. Fillon: “France isn’t a multicultural nation. When you come to someone’s house, by courtesy, you don’t take over.” https://t.co/I7QjQxCy2K
France has never been multicultural, always being explicitly assimilationalist. Indeed this is why it does not collect data on ethnic background and religions of its people. They are simply French.
Arguably this has not worked out very well.
Many aren't seen as "French" even officially. About half of the Muslim residents in France aren't French citizens. (Source.)
One of the reasons I think Fillon is too short is I think a lot of Left Wing voters will hold their noses and vote Macron in the first round to avoid Fillon vs Le Pen.
If the EU knows there's a second vote then that's a huge incentive for them to give us the worst possible terms not because they'll be ever implemented but because they'll deter us from leaving.
Doesn't the whole 'worst possible terms' discussion expose the hole at the centre of the leave argument? If you want hard Brexit then their worst possible terms are your best possible terms and if you think otherwise then you don't really believe your own rhetoric.
No - the best possible terms is a free trade agreement on goods (which can be agreed by QMV) and an agreement on financial services (which will be UV).
Next down the list would be EEA interim while arranging the latter.
worst would be full WTO Brexit without MRA/Customs process harmonisation.
There will be shades of grey inbetween, as there is a need for UK funding into certain projects and a desire for us to be part of them from both sides, single European Sky for example.
So we go from the EU a la carte to Brexit a la carte. Which question was an in/out referendum supposed to resolve again?
More importantly it would remove the dead hand of Govt running a bank.
RBS used to be run by the management for the benefit of the management and was known by bankers in other banks as a 'workers cooperative' as it was not being run for the benefit of shareholders.
The government can not be said to be running the bank as a separte body is interposed between the governmnet and the bank management to look after public shareholders interests.
First Blair. Now Major. Obviously the establishment are re-mobilizing.
This is going to end in civil unrest isn't it?
No. It'll end with the ballot box. Farage is right: if Brexit Betrayed becomes a potent message, GE2020 will have fireworks. Personally, I think the Conservative Party will, one way or another, be able to apply sufficient pressure to the government to ensure that Brexit is delivered before the election, and delivered in a way that does deliver control on immigration, removal from the CJEU's writ and the end to the subscription fee. The establishment won't like that but the establishment would like the alternatives a damn sight less.
I suspect there will be a subscription fee, but that's another matter altogether...
You might well be right, and a relatively small fee could probably be justified although it will leave a bad taste and provide something for the Purists to keep fighting on. It'd need a big quid pro quo though in terms of trade.
There are certain programmes we'll probably want to opt-in (CERN for example) even under the hardest of Brexit scenarios.
Do you want to include that under an EU fee?
It would certainly be helpful to the UK govt to have a general European Co-operation budget which included stuff like CERN, ESA, Erasmus and so on, so that's it's not explicitly an EU fee. But even if it were, I think the transactional nature of £x bn for access to the Single Market without signing up to the full rules for membership of it would be something the electorate would recognise and accept, providing that x isn't too high.
If the EU knows there's a second vote then that's a huge incentive for them to give us the worst possible terms not because they'll be ever implemented but because they'll deter us from leaving.
Doesn't the whole 'worst possible terms' discussion expose the hole at the centre of the leave argument? If you want hard Brexit then their worst possible terms are your best possible terms and if you think otherwise then you don't really believe your own rhetoric.
No - the best possible terms is a free trade agreement on goods (which can be agreed by QMV) and an agreement on financial services (which will be UV).
Next down the list would be EEA interim while arranging the latter.
worst would be full WTO Brexit without MRA/Customs process harmonisation.
There will be shades of grey inbetween, as there is a need for UK funding into certain projects and a desire for us to be part of them from both sides, single European Sky for example.
So we go from the EU a la carte to Brexit a la carte. Which question was an in/out referendum supposed to resolve again?
Our we members of the political union that is the EU or not. Answer: not.
If the EU knows there's a second vote then that's a huge incentive for them to give us the worst possible terms not because they'll be ever implemented but because they'll deter us from leaving.
Doesn't the whole 'worst possible terms' discussion expose the hole at the centre of the leave argument? If you want hard Brexit then their worst possible terms are your best possible terms and if you think otherwise then you don't really believe your own rhetoric.
The worst possible terms are ones that create major blocks to trade and investment between the EU and the UK. Having an unclear deal would be the type of worst deal. But Morris Dancer explains rightly how the game that Blair/Major/Clegg/Farron etc are following undermines the UK negotiating position of Mrs May. These Remainers are potentially damaging the UK's future. We know that Blair has met with at least one EU Leader Hollande, something that is IMHO an unprecented step by an ex PM. I do not recall ex PMs such as Callaghan, Wilson, Mrs T or Ted Heath discussing the matter of the UK's relations with foreign govts with the sitting head of major foreign governments. An extraordinary and potentially dangerous situation.
If the EU knows there's a second vote then that's a huge incentive for them to give us the worst possible terms not because they'll be ever implemented but because they'll deter us from leaving.
I do not think that there will be a further referendum, and do not want one. The last one demonstrated why referenda are worse than our proper democratic processes.
Comments
On a double-related note, my own reading time is very short right now. I've just been reading a few percent at a time of the book I'm currently on. It's not ideal, but better than nothing.
I hasten to add that none of the characters in my books are based on persons here, and any coincidence of names is simply that.
But gifting large sums of money for nothing is IMHO the wrong thing to do, and not good for the wellbeing of the individual in receipt either.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/801937603213881344
This is going to end in civil unrest isn't it?
"A.10.4 The effect of the rebate is to reduce the amount of the UK’s monthly GNI-based payments to the EU Budget. It does not involve any transfer of money from the Commission or other member states to the Exchequer."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483344/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf#page=38
Indeed, the FN's vote share - across the whole country - went down in the second round.
We need a proper political campaign bringing together net-savvy people, who can see specifically what's wrong with these technologies as governments want to apply them, and older, non-technical people who are just more comfortable with the old thing. Between those groups I think you have a blocking minority, but it needs to be properly organized.
Still a long way from that, but it's a credible possibility.
Any second referendum, would be a choice between leaving with the terms negotiated and leaving under WTO terms.
I think in another decade or so a more positive and engaged approach to Europe may well be possible, but not yet.
Words and electioneering. Fillon: “France isn’t a multicultural nation. When you come to someone’s house, by courtesy, you don’t take over.” https://t.co/I7QjQxCy2K
Other treaties that are ratified by the house are still not legislation, but this judgement would tend to give them that weight, when that is not what was intended.
so the judgement should be set aside and one which restricts the right of prerogative to areas that are not 'Legislated' should be inserted. The result in the area debated is the same, but the judgement would then have fewer unforeseen effects.
RIP.
Arguably this has not worked out very well.
Miss Plato, if Blair et al. had taken that stance we might not have quite so many enclaves here.
http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf
He correctly predicts a great increase in wealth, but arguably incorrectly speculates that this will make most people content with material wealth and turning their attention to other things - I don't unfortunately think your admirable mother-in-law is entirely typical in that. Incidentally, there's a passing remark which seems to be intended merely as a harmless quirky observation but would I think now be seen as anti-semitic - an example of the casual generalisations about Jews which were common bfore the war before the horrors of the Holocaust drove that sort of talk out of polite society..
Do you want to include that under an EU fee?
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/802096115499864064
The caveat is that without a second referendum it might look like the British were just delaying the inevitable, which wouldn't be popular.
I'm not singling out any particular person, but I bristle at the casual unthinking snobbery many display.
Whether one backed Brexit or Trump or whatever, the point is that the I Know Best class have been given the finger. And they still haven't got it.
The irresistible force (the public will via the referendum result) seems to meeting the immovable object (establishment opinion to REMAIN despite LEAVE winning the referendum) and I'm not sure at the moment quite how we square to circle to keep everyone (broadly) together.
I'm very worried about where this all going right now. Perhaps when A50 is finally triggered the agenda will move on to more positive territory (what leaving will look like) but at the moment it feels like we're bogged down with doom and gloom while both sides are increasingly angrily shouting at one another...
From there it's straight to the final treaty, and full federalism.
Well looks like robots will soon (and already are) doing that, but if anything our lives are getting too complicated.
Some humourous sections in that Keynes article, like
'What is the result? In spite of an enormous growth in the population of the
world, which it has been necessary to equip with houses and machines, the
average standard of life in Europe and the United States has been raised, I
think, about fourfold. The growth of capital has been on a scale which is far
beyond a hundredfold of what any previous age had known. And from now on
we need not expect so great an increase of population. '
Yeah, that 'not expect so great an increase of population' didn't really happen did it.
As with all these organisations (CERN, ESO, ESA), if you have large-scale research program in particle physics or astronomy, it makes sense to join.
Some EU nations do not, and have not joined (Ireland is not a member of ESO or CERN). Some non-EU nations do, and have joined (Norway is a member of ESO and CERN).
De Gaulle was right when he said "Non".
To be clear I share the view that she won't win but I think you're guilty of underestimating her as an individual.
It is possible to be so stinky that even if you hand out clothespegs people won't vote for you. Many aren't seen as "French" even officially. About half of the Muslim residents in France aren't French citizens. (Source.)
If the EU knows there's a second vote then that's a huge incentive for them to give us the worst possible terms not because they'll be ever implemented but because they'll deter us from leaving.
You're usually easy-going and this isn't meant personally.
I do sense a different mood in the country lately.
There are a 'set' of liberal values and I agree with most of them. But it's no longer a choice anymore. Any deviation from the stated norm is met with insult, rancour and the full weight of the so-called elite. I was happy to vote Labour (Worzel included) when Maggie was PM and I suspect I'm probably a natural contrarian. Despite being fully in favour of Europe in 1975, I was temped to side with Tony Benn et al only because it was such a one-sided debate.
I voted Ukip at the last election, despite voting solidly LD since 2001.
It's like being presented with a breakfast you like every day, but every so often another item is added. Not only must you eat it, you must say how much you enjoy it. Failure will result in cries of something-ist. Even if I do like these values, I think I'm allowed an opinion. Especially when the opinion-formers consider themselves to be superior and above argument.
I'm fully in favour of keeping our 2% pledge for foreign aid. Many disagree and I respect their reservations. They're not necessarily racist Nazis.
To be honest, I have little respect for people who don't see that insulting anyone who disagrees is a way to change minds. I'd vote against them on principle. What great life experiences do they have? What do they know of England who only London know?
Trump is a blow-hard loon but I'd vote for him over a self-obsessed luvvie who thinks they're important.
I'm happy to eat most of the liberal breakfast, but if they try to make it compulsory, they can stick it up your arses.
The problem with the second referendum scenario is simply that the Tory party probably won't want to do it, and if they do the voters will probably just vote Leave again, since they don't really like the EU. Also the Leave side would claim that the deal on offer wasn't the real deal, and that Britain would get a better one after they voted Definitely Leave I Mean It This Time.
Next down the list would be EEA interim while arranging the latter.
worst would be full WTO Brexit without MRA/Customs process harmonisation.
There will be shades of grey inbetween, as there is a need for UK funding into certain projects and a desire for us to be part of them from both sides, single European Sky for example.
The government can not be said to be running the bank as a separte body is interposed between the governmnet and the bank management to look after public shareholders interests.
Now we decide what we are.
A Labour peer has died after being seriously injured when his mobility scooter collided with a van outside Parliament during rush hour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38105935
Famed for the vermin in the ermine sting.
"I'm not bluffing"