A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Brave Sir Ivan ran away he bravely ran away etc
No. He left the Brexiters to stew in their own juice.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Brave Sir Ivan ran away he bravely ran away etc
No. He left the Brexiters to stew in their own juice.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Brave Sir Ivan ran away he bravely ran away etc
LOL, if you had to work with the Three Amigos as your bosses would you not be running Alan. After 9 months they will have a 3 word cunning plan and Brexit will be in it twice.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Brave Sir Ivan ran away he bravely ran away etc
No. He left the Brexiters to stew in their own juice.
when the going got tough
he legged it
pockets stuffed with public cash, when asked to do something other than ponce about , he runs.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Brave Sir Ivan ran away he bravely ran away etc
LOL, if you had to work with the Three Amigos as your bosses would you not be running Alan. After 9 months they will have a 3 word cunning plan and Brexit will be in it twice.
well if he could stomach working with Osborne the 3 amigos are merely light relief :-)
Just an aside, but if Rogers hadn't been such a pro-EU, Eeyorish curmudgeon then the 'deal' might actually have been worth the name and we'd still be in.
The next Labour leader will positively, absolutely have to be a woman so maybe DA isn't beyond the realms of possibility. She also brings treasured BME status to the role. If she wins a GE she'd be the first PM since Spencer Perceval (who was also mental) to wear a wig.
Time Diane moved on though from that Carry On Cleo look:
Theresa May seems unambiguous so far in her interview: "We will have control over our borders and control over our laws." Exactly what she said, in the latter respect, in her conference speech - that the jurisdiction of European law in Britain will end.
She's denying her opponents a soundbite by refusing to say, bluntly, that "we are leaving the single market," but that is the clear implication. As was pretty obvious from virtually everything that May has said since becoming Prime Minister, the EFTA/EEA route is a non-starter. Looking at the correct relationship between the EU, and the UK as an external partner to the EU.
Just an aside, but if Rogers hadn't been such a pro-EU, Eeyorish curmudgeon then the 'deal' might actually have been worth the name and we'd still be in.
quite.
I love the spin that Sir Ivan who? the consummate professional has told the government what Brussels will accept, but appeared incapable of explaining to Brussels what his own nation needed to stay in
May says she is aiming for 'a really good, ambitious trade deal with the EU to enable UK goods and services to have access to the single market' rather than keeping membership of the single market in Sophie Ridge interview on Sky News
Mr. Brooke, not only that, a consummate professional wouldn't send a resignation e-mail critical of his employer, and helpful to those with whom his country will shortly be negotiating, to so many people its emergence into the glare of publicity was all but guaranteed.
Theresa May seems unambiguous so far in her interview: "We will have control over our borders and control over our laws." Exactly what she said, in the latter respect, in her conference speech - that the jurisdiction of European law in Britain will end.
She's denying her opponents a soundbite by refusing to say, bluntly, that "we are leaving the single market," but that is the clear implication. As was pretty obvious from virtually everything that May has said since becoming Prime Minister, the EFTA/EEA route is a non-starter. Looking at the correct relationship between the EU, and the UK as an external partner to the EU.
We may not be in the EEA but there is no reason we cannot rejoin EFTA, Switzerland is not in the EEA but is a member of EFTA for example
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
Mr. Brooke, not only that, a consummate professional wouldn't send a resignation e-mail critical of his employer, and helpful to those with whom his country will shortly be negotiating, to so many people its emergence into the glare of publicity was all but guaranteed.
When I read this, I just had to laugh out loud - since in my opinion she is anything but. For one thing, she is singularly inept at thinking on her feet, an absolute prerequisite for anyone with serious ambitions of achieving senior political office. This is exemplified by her trademark not to mention highly irritating and so transparent habit of looking skywards whilst blinking at a rate of knots whenever she is struggling for an answer to a question, which is often. If TSE is really serious in suggesting such a fanciful proposition then, as a Tory, all I can say with gleeful hope is Yeah, bring it on!
She does know that outcomes require means to achieve them, right?
I don't think she has the nous to understand that. She wraps herself round silly meaningless phrases like "red, white and blue" Brexit. Whatever the focus group means by it.
Theresa May seems unambiguous so far in her interview: "We will have control over our borders and control over our laws." Exactly what she said, in the latter respect, in her conference speech - that the jurisdiction of European law in Britain will end.
She's denying her opponents a soundbite by refusing to say, bluntly, that "we are leaving the single market," but that is the clear implication. As was pretty obvious from virtually everything that May has said since becoming Prime Minister, the EFTA/EEA route is a non-starter. Looking at the correct relationship between the EU, and the UK as an external partner to the EU.
We may not be in the EEA but there is no reason we cannot rejoin EFTA, Switzerland is not in the EEA but is a member of EFTA for example
Theresa May seems unambiguous so far in her interview: "We will have control over our borders and control over our laws." Exactly what she said, in the latter respect, in her conference speech - that the jurisdiction of European law in Britain will end.
She's denying her opponents a soundbite by refusing to say, bluntly, that "we are leaving the single market," but that is the clear implication. As was pretty obvious from virtually everything that May has said since becoming Prime Minister, the EFTA/EEA route is a non-starter. Looking at the correct relationship between the EU, and the UK as an external partner to the EU.
We may not be in the EEA but there is no reason we cannot rejoin EFTA, Switzerland is not in the EEA but is a member of EFTA for example
You re very optimistic
Membership of EFTA is separate from the EU/EEA, in fact the UK was one of the original members of EFTA before it joined the EEC along with Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Norway and Switzerland (the latter two still in EFTA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Theresa May seems unambiguous so far in her interview: "We will have control over our borders and control over our laws." Exactly what she said, in the latter respect, in her conference speech - that the jurisdiction of European law in Britain will end.
She's denying her opponents a soundbite by refusing to say, bluntly, that "we are leaving the single market," but that is the clear implication. As was pretty obvious from virtually everything that May has said since becoming Prime Minister, the EFTA/EEA route is a non-starter. Looking at the correct relationship between the EU, and the UK as an external partner to the EU.
We may not be in the EEA but there is no reason we cannot rejoin EFTA, Switzerland is not in the EEA but is a member of EFTA for example
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
But Edmund you do not seem to understand. They [ the whole EU ] will do anything to protect the German car industry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Brooke, not only that, a consummate professional wouldn't send a resignation e-mail critical of his employer, and helpful to those with whom his country will shortly be negotiating, to so many people its emergence into the glare of publicity was all but guaranteed.
Sir Ivan Rogers his own country
That only works if his own country isn't the EU superstate....
She does know that outcomes require means to achieve them, right?
I don't think she has the nous to understand that. She wraps herself round silly meaningless phrases like "red, white and blue" Brexit. Whatever the focus group means by it.
To be fair to the PM on the "Red, White and Blue" quote, the question she was asked was whether she thought Brexit should be black, white or some mushy grey in the middle. Her reply does make sense in context.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them. The fact they did not even bother meant a Leave vote was inevitable and they have nobody to blame but themselves
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them.
Transitional controls are a standard part of any accession process, and it was the UK that unilaterally waived then in the case of the A8 countries...
I'm perplexed by the argument that they should have asked for things that were already in our power.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them. The fact they did not even bother meant a Leave vote was inevitable and they have nobody to blame but themselves
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
On that general subject, perhaps we can add Brexit to the list of events that can be laid at the door of Tony Blair?
If we'd not had out-of-control population growth since 2004 then would Ukip have got as strong as it did, would Cameron have felt obliged to offer a referendum to keep a lid on his Eurosceptic problem, and would Leave have been able to gather enough support to get over the finishing line?
Rubbing peoples' noses in diversity - a tactic that has worked out so, so well.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
But Edmund you do not seem to understand. They [ the whole EU ] will do anything to protect the German car industry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What has transitional migration controls when we were still in the EU got to do with the German car industry, Germany itself got transitional migration controls in 2004 and still had full single market membership because Schroder was far sharper on this than Blair
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them.
Transitional controls are a standard part of any accession process, and it was the UK that unilaterally waived then in the case of the A8 countries...
I'm perplexed by the argument that they should have asked for things that were already in our power.
And we got good economic growth out of it. Also, our pensions "problem" has been all but mitigated by adding almost a million new [young] taxpayers.
If we'd not had out-of-control population growth since 2004...
Look at the huge spike in non-EU migration from 1997 onwards. At no point has EU migration been higher than non-EU. If we're laying the blame at New Labour's door, the problems started well before 2004.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
On that general subject, perhaps we can add Brexit to the list of events that can be laid at the door of Tony Blair?
If we'd not had out-of-control population growth since 2004 then would Ukip have got as strong as it did, would Cameron have felt obliged to offer a referendum to keep a lid on his Eurosceptic problem, and would Leave have been able to gather enough support to get over the finishing line?
Rubbing peoples' noses in diversity - a tactic that has worked out so, so well.
"She’s an educated lady, she read History under Professor Simon Schama at the finest university in the world, The University of Cambridge."
It's an institution that's so fine that its capitalisation spreads even to a preceding definite article that doesn't start a sentence! And the message is so strong, so pure, so elevated, that even a run-on sentence can convey it!
Seriously, TSE, a person doesn't gain intellect or sense just by going to Cambridge, nor by being lectured by a royalist twat like Simon Schama, who's always known what side his bread is buttered on.
Being one of her lecturers and perhaps also a sometime supervisor for a course or two was Schama's maximum involvement in her education at Cambridge anyway. She probably had 20 or more academics who had a similar or greater level of involvement with her. What does it even mean to say that she studied "under" him? She was at Newnham and he was a fellow at Christ's, so he wouldn't have been her director of studies.
I strongly doubt that she got a first. She may have a history degree from Cambridge - in other words, she didn't fail or drop out - but she still seems to be crap at that subject. Here's something she wrote long after she left:
"From the days when the Norman French invaded Anglo-Saxon Britain, we have been a culturally diverse nation. But because the different nationalities shared a common skin colour, it was possible to ignore the racial diversity which always existed in the British Isles. And even if you take race to mean what it is often commonly meant to imply - skin colour- there have been black people in Britain for centuries. The earliest blacks in Britain were probably black Roman centurions that came over hundreds of years before Christ."
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them.
Transitional controls are a standard part of any accession process, and it was the UK that unilaterally waived then in the case of the A8 countries...
I'm perplexed by the argument that they should have asked for things that were already in our power.
And we got good economic growth out of it. Also, our pensions "problem" has been all but mitigated by adding almost a million new [young] taxpayers.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them.
Transitional controls are a standard part of any accession process, and it was the UK that unilaterally waived then in the case of the A8 countries...
I'm perplexed by the argument that they should have asked for things that were already in our power.
And we got good economic growth out of it. Also, our pensions "problem" has been all but mitigated by adding almost a million new [young] taxpayers.
Germany will also get the same benefit soon.
What we also got was downward pressure on the wages of the low paid and pressure on housing and public services leading to the inevitable Leave vote
And we got good economic growth out of it. Also, our pensions "problem" has been all but mitigated by adding almost a million new [young] taxpayers.
Germany will also get the same benefit soon.
Rather more than a million, I'd wager. In any event, it's a Ponzi scheme: what happens when the imported workers get old?
And a prediction: many or most of the flood of unchecked migrants that Germany took in will be poorly educated and struggle to find jobs. And what happens when young Middle Eastern men become disillusioned, frustrated, bored and start to resent the society that won't give them everything they dreamt of? Hmmm, I wonder...?
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them. The fact they did not even bother meant a Leave vote was inevitable and they have nobody to blame but themselves
Britain already had the right to get transitional controls on new accession - it could have vetoed their accession otherwise. I suppose he could have asked for something he already had as a ruse to bamboozle fuckwitted people, but there's a fine line between bold, shameless political audacity and transparent bollocks that gets you laughed at.
If we'd not had out-of-control population growth since 2004...
Look at the huge spike in non-EU migration from 1997 onwards. At no point has EU migration been higher than non-EU. If we're laying the blame at New Labour's door, the problems started well before 2004.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
But Edmund you do not seem to understand. They [ the whole EU ] will do anything to protect the German car industry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What has transitional migration controls when we were still in the EU got to do with the German car industry, Germany itself got transitional migration controls in 2004 and still had full single market membership because Schroder was far sharper on this than Blair
Nothing. What I meant was that there was a huge impression amongst Leavers [ much less now ] that the EU will do anything to keep the Germans exporting their cars to the UK.
They talked about balance of trade deficits. Forgetting that the EU exports to the UK were just over 3% of their combined GDP whereas for the UK it is 10% of our GDP.
Yes, the total exports from the EU is higher than our exports to them but that is for 27 countries. Individually, it is not even a can of beans.
If we'd not had out-of-control population growth since 2004...
Look at the huge spike in non-EU migration from 1997 onwards. At no point has EU migration been higher than non-EU. If we're laying the blame at New Labour's door, the problems started well before 2004.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them. The fact they did not even bother meant a Leave vote was inevitable and they have nobody to blame but themselves
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
But Edmund you do not seem to understand. They [ the whole EU ] will do anything to protect the German car industry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What has transitional migration controls when we were still in the EU got to do with the German car industry, Germany itself got transitional migration controls in 2004 and still had full single market membership because Schroder was far sharper on this than Blair
Do you seriously think Germany had a special deal that wasn't available to the UK? I didn't have you down as quite that ignorant.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them.
Transitional controls are a standard part of any accession process, and it was the UK that unilaterally waived then in the case of the A8 countries...
I'm perplexed by the argument that they should have asked for things that were already in our power.
Certainly the principal cause of the Leave vote was Tony Blair but Cameron and Rogers did little to redress the damage
When I read this, I just had to laugh out loud - since in my opinion she is anything but. For one thing, she is singularly inept at thinking on her feet, an absolute prerequisite for anyone with serious ambitions of achieving senior political office. This is exemplified by her trademark not to mention highly irritating and so transparent habit of looking skywards whilst blinking at a rate of knots whenever she is struggling for an answer to a question, which is often. If TSE is really serious in suggesting such a fanciful proposition then, as a Tory, all I can say with gleeful hope is Yeah, bring it on!
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them.
Transitional controls are a standard part of any accession process, and it was the UK that unilaterally waived then in the case of the A8 countries...
I'm perplexed by the argument that they should have asked for things that were already in our power.
Certainly the principal cause of the Leave vote was Tony Blair but Cameron and Rogers did little to redress the damage
Old and New Lab were at the heart of our decision to leave.
"She’s an educated lady, she read History under Professor Simon Schama at the finest university in the world, The University of Cambridge."
It's an institution that's so fine that its capitalisation spreads even to a preceding definite article that doesn't start a sentence! And the message is so strong, so pure, so elevated, that even a run-on sentence can convey it!
Seriously, TSE, a person doesn't gain intellect or sense just by going to Cambridge, nor by being lectured by a royalist twat like Simon Schama, who's always known what side his bread is buttered on.
Being one of her lecturers and perhaps also a sometime supervisor for a course or two was Schama's maximum involvement in her education at Cambridge anyway. She probably had 20 or more academics who had a similar or greater level of involvement with her. What does it even mean to say that she studied "under" him? She was at Newnham and he was a fellow at Christ's, so he wouldn't have been her director of studies.
I strongly doubt that she got a first. She may have a history degree from Cambridge - in other words, she didn't fail or drop out - but she still seems to be crap at that subject. Here's something she wrote long after she left:
"From the days when the Norman French invaded Anglo-Saxon Britain, we have been a culturally diverse nation. But because the different nationalities shared a common skin colour, it was possible to ignore the racial diversity which always existed in the British Isles. And even if you take race to mean what it is often commonly meant to imply - skin colour- there have been black people in Britain for centuries. The earliest blacks in Britain were probably black Roman centurions that came over hundreds of years before Christ."
That is spectacularly embarrassing!
*Professor Simon Schama starts deleting bits of his CV...starting with ever being at Cambridge.*
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
On that general subject, perhaps we can add Brexit to the list of events that can be laid at the door of Tony Blair?
If we'd not had out-of-control population growth since 2004 then would Ukip have got as strong as it did, would Cameron have felt obliged to offer a referendum to keep a lid on his Eurosceptic problem, and would Leave have been able to gather enough support to get over the finishing line?
Rubbing peoples' noses in diversity - a tactic that has worked out so, so well.
No, no and no so you are absolutely right. For example in the 1999 European elections UKIP got 7% and 3 seats but by 2004 that had risen to 16% and 12 seats
And we got good economic growth out of it. Also, our pensions "problem" has been all but mitigated by adding almost a million new [young] taxpayers.
Germany will also get the same benefit soon.
Rather more than a million, I'd wager. In any event, it's a Ponzi scheme: what happens when the imported workers get old?
And a prediction: many or most of the flood of unchecked migrants that Germany took in will be poorly educated and struggle to find jobs. And what happens when young Middle Eastern men become disillusioned, frustrated, bored and start to resent the society that won't give them everything they dreamt of? Hmmm, I wonder...?
You mean like the 3m Turks already there ? They are German ! Their children are becoming world cup winners.
You have understandable difficulty to understand this. To you, a foreigner is always a foreigner including their children.
Get it straight. Many of the Britons today are sons and daughters of immigrants.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
But Edmund you do not seem to understand. They [ the whole EU ] will do anything to protect the German car industry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What has transitional migration controls when we were still in the EU got to do with the German car industry, Germany itself got transitional migration controls in 2004 and still had full single market membership because Schroder was far sharper on this than Blair
Do you seriously think Germany had a special deal that wasn't available to the UK? I didn't have you down as quite that ignorant.
Transition arrangements for immigrants were available to Blair/Brown but deliberately chose not to use them thinking the immigrants would eventually become British Labour voters.
If we'd not had out-of-control population growth since 2004...
Look at the huge spike in non-EU migration from 1997 onwards. At no point has EU migration been higher than non-EU. If we're laying the blame at New Labour's door, the problems started well before 2004.
Why do we have so many Indians coming here ? What was T May doing when she was at the Home Office ?
The number of Indians has pretty much flatlined, the number of Pakistanis has started to fall, it is Poles which saw the biggest rise with Romanians and Bulgarians also growing
Transition arrangements for immigrants were available to Blair/Brown but deliberately chose not to use them thinking the immigrants would eventually become British Labour voters.
How? EU citizens have no reason to seek British citizenship and hence get the right to vote in national elections.
Labour's motivation was purely opportunistic as a way of boosting the economy and thinking we could steal a march on France and Germany.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them. The fact they did not even bother meant a Leave vote was inevitable and they have nobody to blame but themselves
Britain already had the right to get transitional controls on new accession - it could have vetoed their accession otherwise. I suppose he could have asked for something he already had as a ruse to bamboozle fuckwitted people, but there's a fine line between bold, shameless political audacity and transparent bollocks that gets you laughed at.
Oh for goodness sake Cameron did not even bother, negotiations are meant to be tough but for fear of being 'laughed' at Cameron got a joke renegotiation which the British people saw as amounting to nothing leading to their Leave vote and the end of his premiership
And we got good economic growth out of it. Also, our pensions "problem" has been all but mitigated by adding almost a million new [young] taxpayers.
Germany will also get the same benefit soon.
Rather more than a million, I'd wager. In any event, it's a Ponzi scheme: what happens when the imported workers get old?
And a prediction: many or most of the flood of unchecked migrants that Germany took in will be poorly educated and struggle to find jobs. And what happens when young Middle Eastern men become disillusioned, frustrated, bored and start to resent the society that won't give them everything they dreamt of? Hmmm, I wonder...?
You mean like the 3m Turks already there ? They are German ! Their children are becoming world cup winners.
You have understandable difficulty to understand this. To you, a foreigner is always a foreigner including their children.
Get it straight. Many of the Britons today are sons and daughters of immigrants.
And many of those sons and daughters of immigrants want to see tighter checks on immigration. And voted leave for that reason. Inconvenient facts which you have to ignore because you want to cling to your delusion that racism underlies concern about immigration.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
But Edmund you do not seem to understand. They [ the whole EU ] will do anything to protect the German car industry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What has transitional migration controls when we were still in the EU got to do with the
Nothing. What I meant was that there was a huge impression amongst Leavers [ much less now ] that the EU will do anything to keep the Germans exporting their cars to the UK.
They talked about balance of trade deficits. Forgetting that the EU exports to the UK were just over 3% of their combined GDP whereas for the UK it is 10% of our GDP.
Yes, the total exports from the EU is higher than our exports to them but that is for 27 countries. Individually, it is not even a can of beans.
The vote to Leave was ultimately to control our borders, people knew there may be some short term economic costs (though likely less than the worst Remoaners expect) but they were prepared to put immigration control over economics
"She’s an educated lady, she read History under Professor Simon Schama at the finest university in the world, The University of Cambridge."
It's an institution that's so fine that its capitalisation spreads even to a preceding definite article that doesn't start a sentence! And the message is so strong, so pure, so elevated, that even a run-on sentence can convey it!
Seriously, TSE, a person doesn't gain intellect or sense just by going to Cambridge, nor by being lectured by a royalist twat like Simon Schama, who's always known what side his bread is buttered on.
Being one of her lecturers and perhaps also a sometime supervisor for a course or two was Schama's maximum involvement in her education at Cambridge anyway. She probably had 20 or more academics who had a similar or greater level of involvement with her. What does it even mean to say that she studied "under" him? She was at Newnham and he was a fellow at Christ's, so he wouldn't have been her director of studies.
I strongly doubt that she got a first. She may have a history degree from Cambridge - in other words, she didn't fail or drop out - but she still seems to be crap at that subject. Here's something she wrote long after she left:
"From the days when the Norman French invaded Anglo-Saxon Britain, we have been a culturally diverse nation. But because the different nationalities shared a common skin colour, it was possible to ignore the racial diversity which always existed in the British Isles. And even if you take race to mean what it is often commonly meant to imply - skin colour- there have been black people in Britain for centuries. The earliest blacks in Britain were probably black Roman centurions that came over hundreds of years before Christ."
That is spectacularly embarrassing!
*Professor Simon Schama starts deleting bits of his CV...starting with ever being at Cambridge.*
According to BBC website she once played Lady MacDuff alongside Michael Portillo as MacDuff (as in the Scottish play).
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
But Edmund you do not seem to understand. They [ the whole EU ] will do anything to protect the German car industry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What has transitional migration controls when we were still in the EU got to do with the German car industry, Germany itself got transitional migration controls in 2004 and still had full single market membership because Schroder was far sharper on this than Blair
Do you seriously think Germany had a special deal that wasn't available to the UK? I didn't have you down as quite that ignorant.
A Canadian 'authority' who says a trade deal could take a decade to negotiate is hardly the same thing as saying the Canadian government warns of Brexit catastrophe
But Sir Ivan Rogers said that the same thing and he is/was in a position to know the real situation in Brussels. He is going because HMG didn't want the unpalatable truth revealed at this stage, namely that the only real options on the table are not to trigger A50 or have a painfully hard Brexit. Frankly, the EU27 hold the whip hand.
Sir Ivan Rogers must share much of the blame for Brexit in the first place due to his complete failure to get an effective renegotiation and even the Eastern European migrant break Blair rejected but most EU leaders took in 2004. Given his record then he was hardly the best person to get the best possible deal now
The deal you're dreaming of was never going to happen, as was obvious at the time. Anybody who follows European politics knew this. Cameron must have known it. The goal was to get him through the election without saying whether he supported in or out.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
Plenty of new countries likely to come into the EU in the next few years, Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia are all candidate countries and Cameron and Rogers could have got transitional migration controls on future accession countries like them.
Transitional controls are a standard part of any accession process, and it was the UK that unilaterally waived then in the case of the A8 countries...
I'm perplexed by the argument that they should have asked for things that were already in our power.
Certainly the principal cause of the Leave vote was Tony Blair but Cameron and Rogers did little to redress the damage
Old and New Lab were at the heart of our decision to leave.
Indeed but it was Blair and Brown who are the most to blame
Transition arrangements for immigrants were available to Blair/Brown but deliberately chose not to use them thinking the immigrants would eventually become British Labour voters.
That is not the reason. A high level of immigration has been supported by all major political parties since the 1950s and 1960s for the simple reason that employers want it because it helps keep labour costs down. Blair and Brown would not have been so stupid as to believe that the immigrants would mostly eventually become Labour voters. I doubt they cared a hoot what Labour's voteshare would be 20 or more years after they left politics.
When I read this, I just had to laugh out loud - since in my opinion she is anything but. For one thing, she is singularly inept at thinking on her feet, an absolute prerequisite for anyone with serious ambitions of achieving senior political office. This is exemplified by her trademark not to mention highly irritating and so transparent habit of looking skywards whilst blinking at a rate of knots whenever she is struggling for an answer to a question, which is often. If TSE is really serious in suggesting such a fanciful proposition then, as a Tory, all I can say with gleeful hope is Yeah, bring it on!
The thread header certainly made me laugh out loud. So utterly, inconceivably bonkers that the Labour party is probably going to go right ahead and do it.
And we got good economic growth out of it. Also, our pensions "problem" has been all but mitigated by adding almost a million new [young] taxpayers.
Germany will also get the same benefit soon.
Rather more than a million, I'd wager. In any event, it's a Ponzi scheme: what happens when the imported workers get old?
And a prediction: many or most of the flood of unchecked migrants that Germany took in will be poorly educated and struggle to find jobs. And what happens when young Middle Eastern men become disillusioned, frustrated, bored and start to resent the society that won't give them everything they dreamt of? Hmmm, I wonder...?
You mean like the 3m Turks already there ? They are German ! Their children are becoming world cup winners.
You have understandable difficulty to understand this. To you, a foreigner is always a foreigner including their children.
Get it straight. Many of the Britons today are sons and daughters of immigrants.
And many of those sons and daughters of immigrants want to see tighter checks on immigration. And voted leave for that reason. Inconvenient facts which you have to ignore because you want to cling to your delusion that racism underlies concern about immigration.
Isn't it a good thing that immigrants start behaving like any other people ? So why not have some more ? Despite all these immigrants, our unemployment kept on falling.
Maybe, they were adding to the economy , not taking anything away.
And we got good economic growth out of it. Also, our pensions "problem" has been all but mitigated by adding almost a million new [young] taxpayers.
Germany will also get the same benefit soon.
Rather more than a million, I'd wager. In any event, it's a Ponzi scheme: what happens when the imported workers get old?
And a prediction: many or most of the flood of unchecked migrants that Germany took in will be poorly educated and struggle to find jobs. And what happens when young Middle Eastern men become disillusioned, frustrated, bored and start to resent the society that won't give them everything they dreamt of? Hmmm, I wonder...?
You mean like the 3m Turks already there ? They are German ! Their children are becoming world cup winners.
You have understandable difficulty to understand this. To you, a foreigner is always a foreigner including their children.
Get it straight. Many of the Britons today are sons and daughters of immigrants.
And many of those sons and daughters of immigrants want to see tighter checks on immigration. And voted leave for that reason. Inconvenient facts which you have to ignore because you want to cling to your delusion that racism underlies concern about immigration.
Personal anecdote alert - all the people I know (immediate family, friends) who voted Leave are 1st/2nd generation immigrants - and tried to persuade me to join them.... (I voted Remain) Living in central London biases the results of course.
The motivations were interesting - since they had all jumped through the hoops of the complex, expensive and lengthy legal process to stay in the UK from outside the EU, ease of movement wasn't an issue for them. A tale of having to get a visa for going to France is a joke to them...
Interestingly it was immigration, but with interesting concerns -
- "Why are the people running the country determined to import violent fuckwits without any checks, when I have x cousins at home who don't hate the UK and want to live there?" - "I came to this country because it was the UK. Not [insert third world country]" - "In my country we were colonised by the French. I don't want to live in a country partly run by them"
I stuck the princely sum of £2 on Abbott last week at 129/1 after thinking about her path to power. My fevered imagination goes something like this:
It's 2019. Corbyn knows he's not going to win. He stands down, citing his age (also the fact his egotistical streak won't *let* him be remembered as the man who led Labour to it's worst ever defeat).
Who takes over? Unless something drastic changes between now and 2020, a Tory victory is a dead cert. McDonnell doesn't want it, because he knows he's so linked to the Corbyn project failure in 2020 will mean he has to stand down - and a McDonnell loss in 2020 would still discredit the Corbyn project.
Enter Abbott. Shadow home sec. Close to the Corbyn project. And the optics! Black, female, right on...
She will allow the Labour party to lose in 2020 while feeling good about itself.
The left can then tut at the country on twitter for "not being ready for it's first black female PM etc" without the need to disavow the hard left policies the Corbyn project stands for, allowing a more plausible candidate from the left to become leader after 2020 and fight a ropey and disunited dog-days-of-the-Major-years Tory party to become PM in 2025.
Abbott is the best candidate the left can put up in 2020 because it will allow them to lose without drifting back to the centre. For those reasons, she's still worth a punt.
"She’s an educated lady, she read History under Professor Simon Schama at the finest university in the world, The University of Cambridge."
It's an institution that's so fine that its capitalisation spreads even to a preceding definite article that doesn't start a sentence! And the message is so strong, so pure, so elevated, that even a run-on sentence can convey it!
Seriously, TSE, a person doesn't gain intellect or sense just by going to Cambridge, nor by being lectured by a royalist twat like Simon Schama, who's always known what side his bread is buttered on.
Being one of her lecturers and perhaps also a sometime supervisor for a course or two was Schama's maximum involvement in her education at Cambridge anyway. She probably had 20 or more academics who had a similar or greater level of involvement with her. What does it even mean to say that she studied "under" him? She was at Newnham and he was a fellow at Christ's, so he wouldn't have been her director of studies.
I strongly doubt that she got a first. She may have a history degree from Cambridge - in other words, she didn't fail or drop out - but she still seems to be crap at that subject. Here's something she wrote long after she left:
"From the days when the Norman French invaded Anglo-Saxon Britain, we have been a culturally diverse nation. But because the different nationalities shared a common skin colour, it was possible to ignore the racial diversity which always existed in the British Isles. And even if you take race to mean what it is often commonly meant to imply - skin colour- there have been black people in Britain for centuries. The earliest blacks in Britain were probably black Roman centurions that came over hundreds of years before Christ."
That is spectacularly embarrassing!
*Professor Simon Schama starts deleting bits of his CV...starting with ever being at Cambridge.*
Ignoring the AD - BC screwup....
Honest question - would the Roman army have ever had a black Centurion? They were very racist - the.... Latin word word for those of African origin.... was used as an extreme insult (see a speech by Cicero) in the ugliest sense. But then again, the Romans, in the end, made just about anyone a citizen and the army contained every nationality they included in the Empire
"She’s an educated lady, she read History under Professor Simon Schama at the finest university in the world, The University of Cambridge."
It's an institution that's so fine that its capitalisation spreads even to a preceding definite article that doesn't start a sentence! And the message is so strong, so pure, so elevated, that even a run-on sentence can convey it!
Seriously, TSE, a person doesn't gain intellect or sense just by going to Cambridge, nor by being lectured by a royalist twat like Simon Schama, who's always known what side his bread is buttered on.
Being one of her lecturers and perhaps also a sometime supervisor for a course or two was Schama's maximum involvement in her education at Cambridge anyway. She probably had 20 or more academics who had a similar or greater level of involvement with her. What does it even mean to say that she studied "under" him? She was at Newnham and he was a fellow at Christ's, so he wouldn't have been her director of studies.
I strongly doubt that she got a first. She may have a history degree from Cambridge - in other words, she didn't fail or drop out - but she still seems to be crap at that subject. Here's something she wrote long after she left:
"From the days when the Norman French invaded Anglo-Saxon Britain, we have been a culturally diverse nation. But because the different nationalities shared a common skin colour, it was possible to ignore the racial diversity which always existed in the British Isles. And even if you take race to mean what it is often commonly meant to imply - skin colour- there have been black people in Britain for centuries. The earliest blacks in Britain were probably black Roman centurions that came over hundreds of years before Christ."
That is spectacularly embarrassing!
*Professor Simon Schama starts deleting bits of his CV...starting with ever being at Cambridge.*
According to BBC website she once played Lady MacDuff alongside Michael Portillo as MacDuff (as in the Scottish play).
Abott and Portillo went to the same comprehensive school at the same time.
It's always amusing to see the 'average' man admit to 50% more partners than the 'average' woman.
But mathmatically posssible.
Yes, if there are a relatively small number of very promiscuous women in the sample.
To get an average of over 40 though, that requires either a large number of 'professional' women in the sample, or a lot of keen amateurs. Welcome to Wolverhampton!
Comments
he legged it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Qk5XgD6dE
http://d3l2rivt3pqnj2.cloudfront.net/highres_images/easyart/4/2/422413.jpg
She's denying her opponents a soundbite by refusing to say, bluntly, that "we are leaving the single market," but that is the clear implication. As was pretty obvious from virtually everything that May has said since becoming Prime Minister, the EFTA/EEA route is a non-starter. Looking at the correct relationship between the EU, and the UK as an external partner to the EU.
I love the spin that Sir Ivan who? the consummate professional has told the government what Brussels will accept, but appeared incapable of explaining to Brussels what his own nation needed to stay in
One way diplomacy
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/818046364735143937
She does know that outcomes require means to achieve them, right?
When I read this, I just had to laugh out loud - since in my opinion she is anything but. For one thing, she is singularly inept at thinking on her feet, an absolute prerequisite for anyone with serious ambitions of achieving senior political office. This is exemplified by her trademark not to mention highly irritating and so transparent habit of looking skywards whilst blinking at a rate of knots whenever she is struggling for an answer to a question, which is often.
If TSE is really serious in suggesting such a fanciful proposition then, as a Tory, all I can say with gleeful hope is Yeah, bring it on!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association
She was inept at her job. She only schemed in the background to be PM. And everyone thought it was the bumbling idiot.
The reason countries could get transitional migration controls was because they had individual vetoes on accession. That's a completely different situation from the one where they're already in, and you're asking elected politicians to volunteer to screw their own citizens to keep a foreign country's voters happy.
“Labour will return to political sanity and appoint” - er, Diane Abbott…!
That’s political satire, not sanity.
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/818049621494734848
I'm perplexed by the argument that they should have asked for things that were already in our power.
If we'd not had out-of-control population growth since 2004 then would Ukip have got as strong as it did, would Cameron have felt obliged to offer a referendum to keep a lid on his Eurosceptic problem, and would Leave have been able to gather enough support to get over the finishing line?
Rubbing peoples' noses in diversity - a tactic that has worked out so, so well.
Germany will also get the same benefit soon.
"She’s an educated lady, she read History under Professor Simon Schama at the finest university in the world, The University of Cambridge."
It's an institution that's so fine that its capitalisation spreads even to a preceding definite article that doesn't start a sentence! And the message is so strong, so pure, so elevated, that even a run-on sentence can convey it!
Seriously, TSE, a person doesn't gain intellect or sense just by going to Cambridge, nor by being lectured by a royalist twat like Simon Schama, who's always known what side his bread is buttered on.
Being one of her lecturers and perhaps also a sometime supervisor for a course or two was Schama's maximum involvement in her education at Cambridge anyway. She probably had 20 or more academics who had a similar or greater level of involvement with her. What does it even mean to say that she studied "under" him? She was at Newnham and he was a fellow at Christ's, so he wouldn't have been her director of studies.
I strongly doubt that she got a first. She may have a history degree from Cambridge - in other words, she didn't fail or drop out - but she still seems to be crap at that subject. Here's something she wrote long after she left:
"From the days when the Norman French invaded Anglo-Saxon Britain, we have been a culturally diverse nation. But because the different nationalities shared a common skin colour, it was possible to ignore the racial diversity which always existed in the British Isles. And even if you take race to mean what it is often commonly meant to imply - skin colour- there have been black people in Britain for centuries. The earliest blacks in Britain were probably black Roman centurions that came over hundreds of years before Christ."
And a prediction: many or most of the flood of unchecked migrants that Germany took in will be poorly educated and struggle to find jobs. And what happens when young Middle Eastern men become disillusioned, frustrated, bored and start to resent the society that won't give them everything they dreamt of? Hmmm, I wonder...?
2-line summary of Tezza's performance pls.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37183733
They talked about balance of trade deficits. Forgetting that the EU exports to the UK were just over 3% of their combined GDP whereas for the UK it is 10% of our GDP.
Yes, the total exports from the EU is higher than our exports to them but that is for 27 countries. Individually, it is not even a can of beans.
https://youtu.be/zZ-r7iJZiBM
Good luck TSE!
*Professor Simon Schama starts deleting bits of his CV...starting with ever being at Cambridge.*
You have understandable difficulty to understand this. To you, a foreigner is always a foreigner including their children.
Get it straight. Many of the Britons today are sons and daughters of immigrants.
I'm working in Wolverhampton most of this month
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4098820/People-WOLVERHAMPTON-say-sexual-partners-UK.html
Labour's motivation was purely opportunistic as a way of boosting the economy and thinking we could steal a march on France and Germany.
Abbott, Labour Leader, a woman with such talent that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown failed to use it.
Not sure if this will mean Trump is more friendly or less friendly to the UK.
Maybe, they were adding to the economy , not taking anything away.
The motivations were interesting - since they had all jumped through the hoops of the complex, expensive and lengthy legal process to stay in the UK from outside the EU, ease of movement wasn't an issue for them. A tale of having to get a visa for going to France is a joke to them...
Interestingly it was immigration, but with interesting concerns -
- "Why are the people running the country determined to import violent fuckwits without any checks, when I have x cousins at home who don't hate the UK and want to live there?"
- "I came to this country because it was the UK. Not [insert third world country]"
- "In my country we were colonised by the French. I don't want to live in a country partly run by them"
Anyone fu coffee?
It's 2019. Corbyn knows he's not going to win. He stands down, citing his age (also the fact his egotistical streak won't *let* him be remembered as the man who led Labour to it's worst ever defeat).
Who takes over? Unless something drastic changes between now and 2020, a Tory victory is a dead cert. McDonnell doesn't want it, because he knows he's so linked to the Corbyn project failure in 2020 will mean he has to stand down - and a McDonnell loss in 2020 would still discredit the Corbyn project.
Enter Abbott. Shadow home sec. Close to the Corbyn project. And the optics! Black, female, right on...
She will allow the Labour party to lose in 2020 while feeling good about itself.
The left can then tut at the country on twitter for "not being ready for it's first black female PM etc" without the need to disavow the hard left policies the Corbyn project stands for, allowing a more plausible candidate from the left to become leader after 2020 and fight a ropey and disunited dog-days-of-the-Major-years Tory party to become PM in 2025.
Abbott is the best candidate the left can put up in 2020 because it will allow them to lose without drifting back to the centre. For those reasons, she's still worth a punt.
Honest question - would the Roman army have ever had a black Centurion? They were very racist - the.... Latin word word for those of African origin.... was used as an extreme insult (see a speech by Cicero) in the ugliest sense. But then again, the Romans, in the end, made just about anyone a citizen and the army contained every nationality they included in the Empire
To get an average of over 40 though, that requires either a large number of 'professional' women in the sample, or a lot of keen amateurs. Welcome to Wolverhampton!