Excellent Don. That is my hope as a fervent remoaner that negotiations will prove so tortuous that the Tories will start to split, again, over this and we will end up with another referendum where hopefully facts will overshadow the lies we had the first time round. £300m for the NHS. Bollocks.Immigration slashed. Bollocks.
The latest line from the Leavers is that this was a suggestion not a commitment:
Which is imaginative, but what Single-Source Oakeshott forgets is that in fact Vote Leave published a Brexit framework (what you or I would call a manifesto) which unambiguously built in a bill for giving additional funding for the NHS:
"Legislation to be introduced in subsequent sessions will include:
...
National Health Service (Funding Target) Bill. This would require that by the next general election, the NHS receives a £100 million per week real-terms cash transfusion over and above current plans. This will be paid for by savings from the UK’s contributions to the EU budget and other savings from leaving (e.g. we will not pay the billions that the ECJ is ordering us to pay to multinational companies trying to avoid UK taxes)."
Not much of a suggestion about that.
Cameron should have outlined what he intended to do in the event of Leave winning. In the absence of that, all the Leave campaigns could do was suggest what could be done
Perhaps he should have appointed an official Leave Campaign which then produced an official Leave manifesto?
When he couldn't even produce a realistic Remain manifesto? You give the idiot too much credit.
Ladbrokes have new market up for the new West Of England Regional Mayor They have Lib Dem Stephen Williams former Bristol West MP as Evens Fav Cons 11/10 Lab 7/1 Greens 50/1 UKIP 100/1
Ladbrokes have new market up for the new West Of England Regional Mayor They have Lib Dem Stephen Williams former Bristol West MP as Evens Fav Cons 11/10 Lab 7/1 Greens 50/1 UKIP 100/1
What wil the West Of England Regional Mayor actually do? If he covers Cornwall I can see dispute after dispute.
He doesn't – it's the Greater Bristol area. The reason that the mayoralty has a stupid name is that the parochial types in areas outside the City of Bristol objected to it being name after the core city. Pathetic as that might seem!
Cameron should have outlined what he intended to do in the event of Leave winning. In the absence of that, all the Leave campaigns could do was suggest what could be done
Perhaps he should have appointed an official Leave Campaign which then produced an official Leave manifesto?
The real mistake was the renegotiation. Simply doing that implied that the EU was unacceptable as it stood, and that he would make the difference. All this achieved was muzzling those in favour of our memberaship, allowing those opposed to ask for the impossible, and for him looking daft when he came home with some technical proposals that couldn't be sold.
Completely agree with that. The EU was a source of irritation and a long term concern but pretty far down my list of concerns in 2015. I agreed with almost all of what Cameron had said in his Bloomberg speech and hoped that the EU could be reformed to something closer to the UK's taste.
And then Cameron tried to negotiate some reforms. And it was embarrassing. And made it crystal clear that the bulk of the EU (or at least the bits that count) were completely committed to a path that I for one did not want to go down. It turned me from a very reluctant remainer into a leaver. It destroyed any hope that the EU might in future be a free trade organisation that left its members to get on with except to the extent that this caused market distortions.
I think that sooner or later, Brexit would have taken place. Our relationship with the EU was transactional. No more than a relatively small proportion of the population had any emotional commitment to the organisation.
I wouldn't have agreed with you on June 24th but do now - even as someone generally supportive of the EU I thought there would have been some more humility on such a great rebuff and some soul-searching about why they had been dumped. If there has been, it's been well-hidden. Had the referendum been 52:48 the other way, I can't imagine that we'd be seeing the phrase "the will of the people" on the pages of the Daily Mail or Brexiteer lips so much!
An expensive day for the Ukip MEP Jane Collins – the high court in London has ordered her to pay £54,000 each to three of Rotherham’s Labour MPs over a speech she made at the party’s 2014 conference about the town’s abuse scandal.
Collins, MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire said the MPs knew many of the details of the exploitation yet chose not to intervene, and instead acted on misplaced political correctness, the libel hearing heard.
Ladbrokes have new market up for the new West Of England Regional Mayor They have Lib Dem Stephen Williams former Bristol West MP as Evens Fav Cons 11/10 Lab 7/1 Greens 50/1 UKIP 100/1
What wil the West Of England Regional Mayor actually do? If he covers Cornwall I can see dispute after dispute.
It does not cover Cornwall , basically the old Avon region less NE Somerset . I agree it is another of this government's silly ideas perhaps not as bad as the original Norfolk/Suffolk regional mayor which has transmogrified into Cambs/Peterborough with neither Norfolk nor Suffolk included .
Ladbrokes have new market up for the new West Of England Regional Mayor They have Lib Dem Stephen Williams former Bristol West MP as Evens Fav Cons 11/10 Lab 7/1 Greens 50/1 UKIP 100/1
What wil the West Of England Regional Mayor actually do? If he covers Cornwall I can see dispute after dispute.
He doesn't – it's the Greater Bristol area. The reason that the mayoralty has a stupid name is that the parochial types in areas outside the City of Bristol objected to it being name after the core city. Pathetic as that might seem!
Thanks; I’d been directed to the appropriate website so deleted the post you kindly answered. You’re right it is a misleading name!
"Et la mayonnaise a pris. Maintenant, ils sont comme cul et chemise avec Nigel Farage" s’amuse-t-elle.
They gelled, and now they get on with each other like a house on fire.
She says she also tried to bring about friendly relations (rapprochement) with the AfD. In the 2014 EU elections she topped the list in the Eastern region of France for Dupont-Aignan's Debout La Republique party, now called Debout La France, which she'd helped to shape for seven years.
Welcome.
Doesn't "ils sont comme cul et chemise" translate to the English expression "they are as thick as thieves" ? Which carries the implication that they might be up to no good together
Excellent Don. That is my hope as a fervent remoaner that negotiations will prove so tortuous that the Tories will start to split, again, over this and we will end up with another referendum where hopefully facts will overshadow the lies we had the first time round. £300m for the NHS. Bollocks.Immigration slashed. Bollocks.
The latest line from the Leavers is that this was a suggestion not a commitment:
Which is imaginative, but what Single-Source Oakeshott forgets is that in fact Vote Leave published a Brexit framework (what you or I would call a manifesto) which unambiguously built in a bill for giving additional funding for the NHS:
"Legislation to be introduced in subsequent sessions will include:
...
National Health Service (Funding Target) Bill. This would require that by the next general election, the NHS receives a £100 million per week real-terms cash transfusion over and above current plans. This will be paid for by savings from the UK’s contributions to the EU budget and other savings from leaving (e.g. we will not pay the billions that the ECJ is ordering us to pay to multinational companies trying to avoid UK taxes)."
Not much of a suggestion about that.
Cameron should have outlined what he intended to do in the event of Leave winning. In the absence of that, all the Leave campaigns could do was suggest what could be done
Perhaps he should have appointed an official Leave Campaign which then produced an official Leave manifesto?
When he couldn't even produce a realistic Remain manifesto? You give the idiot too much credit.
Dave did have a manifesto - his deal. It entailed never joining the Euro and an end to ever closer union. Thankfully it was defeated so now people like me are free to speak out again!
Ladbrokes have new market up for the new West Of England Regional Mayor They have Lib Dem Stephen Williams former Bristol West MP as Evens Fav Cons 11/10 Lab 7/1 Greens 50/1 UKIP 100/1
What wil the West Of England Regional Mayor actually do? If he covers Cornwall I can see dispute after dispute.
It does not cover Cornwall , basically the old Avon region less NE Somerset . I agree it is another of this government's silly ideas perhaps not as bad as the original Norfolk/Suffolk regional mayor which has transmogrified into Cambs/Peterborough with neither Norfolk nor Suffolk included .
Metro mayors are not a silly idea. They are a good idea. What is silly is the stupid name for the Greater Bristol mayoralty, thankfully avoided in Liverpool and Manchester, which are named after the core city.
Agreed that Cambs/Pboro is daft.
But Gtr Manchester and Gtr Liverpool make a lot of sense.
An expensive day for the Ukip MEP Jane Collins – the high court in London has ordered her to pay £54,000 each to three of Rotherham’s Labour MPs over a speech she made at the party’s 2014 conference about the town’s abuse scandal.
Collins, MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire said the MPs knew many of the details of the exploitation yet chose not to intervene, and instead acted on misplaced political correctness, the libel hearing heard.
Cameron should have outlined what he intended to do in the event of Leave winning. In the absence of that, all the Leave campaigns could do was suggest what could be done
Perhaps he should have appointed an official Leave Campaign which then produced an official Leave manifesto?
The real mistake was the renegotiation. Simply doing that implied that the EU was unacceptable as it stood, and that he would make the difference. All this achieved was muzzling those in favour of our memberaship, allowing those opposed to ask for the impossible, and for him looking daft when he came home with some technical proposals that couldn't be sold.
Completely agree with that. The EU was a source of irritation and a long term concern but pretty far down my list of concerns in 2015. I agreed with almost all of what Cameron had said in his Bloomberg speech and hoped that the EU could be reformed to something closer to the UK's taste.
And then Cameron tried to negotiate some reforms. And it was embarrassing. And made it crystal clear that the bulk of the EU (or at least the bits that count) were completely committed to a path that I for one did not want to go down. It turned me from a very reluctant remainer into a leaver. It destroyed any hope that the EU might in future be a free trade organisation that left its members to get on with except to the extent that this caused market distortions.
I think that sooner or later, Brexit would have taken place. Our relationship with the EU was transactional. No more than a relatively small proportion of the population had any emotional commitment to the organisation.
I wouldn't have agreed with you on June 24th but do now - even as someone generally supportive of the EU I thought there would have been some more humility on such a great rebuff and some soul-searching about why they had been dumped. If there has been, it's been well-hidden. Had the referendum been 52:48 the other way, I can't imagine that we'd be seeing the phrase "the will of the people" on the pages of the Daily Mail or Brexiteer lips so much!
52:48 remain - shudder. I would imagine the pressure to sign up to some of the wackier EU ideas would now be building and then there would be the question of the budget! Oh yes, let's not forget accepting our 'quota' of Merkel's invitees
Ladbrokes have new market up for the new West Of England Regional Mayor They have Lib Dem Stephen Williams former Bristol West MP as Evens Fav Cons 11/10 Lab 7/1 Greens 50/1 UKIP 100/1
What wil the West Of England Regional Mayor actually do? If he covers Cornwall I can see dispute after dispute.
It does not cover Cornwall , basically the old Avon region less NE Somerset . I agree it is another of this government's silly ideas perhaps not as bad as the original Norfolk/Suffolk regional mayor which has transmogrified into Cambs/Peterborough with neither Norfolk nor Suffolk included .
See my post earlier, and thanks for putting me straight. The BBC’s Eastern local news has been salivating over the mayoralty for month. Is there a Mayoral suggestion for Essex, does anyone know?
Ladbrokes have new market up for the new West Of England Regional Mayor They have Lib Dem Stephen Williams former Bristol West MP as Evens Fav Cons 11/10 Lab 7/1 Greens 50/1 UKIP 100/1
What wil the West Of England Regional Mayor actually do? If he covers Cornwall I can see dispute after dispute.
It does not cover Cornwall , basically the old Avon region less NE Somerset . I agree it is another of this government's silly ideas perhaps not as bad as the original Norfolk/Suffolk regional mayor which has transmogrified into Cambs/Peterborough with neither Norfolk nor Suffolk included .
Metro mayors are not a silly idea. They are a good idea. What is silly is the stupid name for the Greater Bristol mayoralty, thankfully avoided in Liverpool and Manchester, which are named after the core city.
Agreed that Cambs/Pboro is daft.
But Gtr Manchester and Gtr Liverpool make a lot of sense.
An expensive day for the Ukip MEP Jane Collins – the high court in London has ordered her to pay £54,000 each to three of Rotherham’s Labour MPs over a speech she made at the party’s 2014 conference about the town’s abuse scandal.
Collins, MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire said the MPs knew many of the details of the exploitation yet chose not to intervene, and instead acted on misplaced political correctness, the libel hearing heard.
"Et la mayonnaise a pris. Maintenant, ils sont comme cul et chemise avec Nigel Farage" s’amuse-t-elle.
They gelled, and now they get on with each other like a house on fire.
She says she also tried to bring about friendly relations (rapprochement) with the AfD. In the 2014 EU elections she topped the list in the Eastern region of France for Dupont-Aignan's Debout La Republique party, now called Debout La France, which she'd helped to shape for seven years.
Welcome.
Doesn't "ils sont comme cul et chemise" translate to the English expression "they are as thick as thieves" ? Which carries the implication that they might be up to no good together
When has Nigel ever been up to ‘good’? Alone or in cahoots with anyone else.
Ladbrokes have new market up for the new West Of England Regional Mayor They have Lib Dem Stephen Williams former Bristol West MP as Evens Fav Cons 11/10 Lab 7/1 Greens 50/1 UKIP 100/1
What wil the West Of England Regional Mayor actually do? If he covers Cornwall I can see dispute after dispute.
It does not cover Cornwall , basically the old Avon region less NE Somerset . I agree it is another of this government's silly ideas perhaps not as bad as the original Norfolk/Suffolk regional mayor which has transmogrified into Cambs/Peterborough with neither Norfolk nor Suffolk included .
Metro mayors are not a silly idea. They are a good idea. What is silly is the stupid name for the Greater Bristol mayoralty, thankfully avoided in Liverpool and Manchester, which are named after the core city.
Agreed that Cambs/Pboro is daft.
But Gtr Manchester and Gtr Liverpool make a lot of sense.
I wouldn't have agreed with you on June 24th but do now - even as someone generally supportive of the EU I thought there would have been some more humility on such a great rebuff and some soul-searching about why they had been dumped. If there has been, it's been well-hidden. Had the referendum been 52:48 the other way, I can't imagine that we'd be seeing the phrase "the will of the people" on the pages of the Daily Mail or Brexiteer lips so much!
No you would have heard it on the lips of Eurocrats instead every time we grumbled about their latest wheeze. They would have asked us what we were grumbling about since being in the EU was clearly the will of the people, and by implication the people clearly approved of every and all things EU.
The speech from Tusk last week was breathtaking in its arrogance, it was a straight down the line harder, faster, more Europe, more integration, more EU foreign policy etc. Which completely destroys and remaining credibility of the people that tried to suggest there was a status quo element in Remaining. There were only ever two options, leaving, or staying with the program of ever closer union - the words not being in an documents as per Cameron's renegotiation is fatuous when we would have been surrendering competences to an expanding EU foreign ministry amongst others.
The real mistake was the renegotiation. Simply doing that implied that the EU was unacceptable as it stood, and that he would make the difference. All this achieved was muzzling those in favour of our membership, allowing those opposed to ask for the impossible, and for him looking daft when he came home with some technical proposals that couldn't be sold.
Completely agree with that. The EU was a source of irritation and a long term concern but pretty far down my list of concerns in 2015. I agreed with almost all of what Cameron had said in his Bloomberg speech and hoped that the EU could be reformed to something closer to the UK's taste.
And then Cameron tried to negotiate some reforms. And it was embarrassing. And made it crystal clear that the bulk of the EU (or at least the bits that count) were completely committed to a path that I for one did not want to go down. It turned me from a very reluctant remainer into a leaver. It destroyed any hope that the EU might in future be a free trade organisation that left its members to get on with except to the extent that this caused market distortions.
I think that sooner or later, Brexit would have taken place. Our relationship with the EU was transactional. a relatively small proportion of the population had any emotional commitment to the organisation.
I wouldn't have agreed with you on June 24th but do now - even as someone generally supportive of the EU I thought there would have been some more humility on such a great rebuff and some soul-searching about why they had been dumped. If there has been, it's been well-hidden. Had the referendum been 52:48 the other way, I can't imagine that we'd be seeing the phrase "the will of the people" on the pages of the Daily Mail or Brexiteer lips so much!
52:48 remain - shudder. I would imagine the pressure to sign up to some of the wackier EU ideas would now be building and then there would be the question of the budget! Oh yes, let's not forget accepting our 'quota' of Merkel's invitees
Nah, there would have been no legal or political basis for any of that (apart from the budget, although that's actually one area we have had some success in.) There would be no way that any treaty change would have got through the UK (both the Tory gvt and the 2011 referendum lock act) so it really would have been status quo for some years. What I think you would have had would have been a UKIP surge from angry Tories, instead of the Lib Dem surge from angry Tories (and fed up Labourites.)
Cameron should have outlined what he intended to do in the event of Leave winning. In the absence of that, all the Leave campaigns could do was suggest what could be done
Perhaps he should have appointed an official Leave Campaign which then produced an official Leave manifesto?
The real mistake was the renegotiation. Simply doing that implied that the EU was unacceptable as it stood, and that he would make the difference. All this achieved was muzzling those in favour of our memberaship, allowing those opposed to ask for the impossible, and for him looking daft when he came home with some technical proposals that couldn't be sold.
Completely agree with that. The EU was a source of irritation and a long term concern but pretty far down my list of concerns in 2015. I agreed with almost all of what Cameron had said in his Bloomberg speech and hoped that the EU could be reformed to something closer to the UK's taste.
And then Cameron tried to negotiate some reforms. And it was embarrassing. And made it crystal clear that the bulk of the EU (or at least the bits that count) were completely committed to a path that I for one did not want to go down. It turned me from a very reluctant remainer into a leaver. It destroyed any hope that the EU might in future be a free trade organisation that left its members to get on with except to the extent that this caused market distortions.
I think that sooner or later, Brexit would have taken place. Our relationship with the EU was transactional. No more than a relatively small proportion of the population had any emotional commitment to the organisation.
I wouldn't have agreed with you on June 24th but do now - even as someone generally supportive of the EU I thought there would have been some more humility on such a great rebuff and some soul-searching about why they had been dumped. If there has been, it's been well-hidden. Had the referendum been 52:48 the other way, I can't imagine that we'd be seeing the phrase "the will of the people" on the pages of the Daily Mail or Brexiteer lips so much!
52:48 remain - shudder. I would imagine the pressure to sign up to some of the wackier EU ideas would now be building and then there would be the question of the budget! Oh yes, let's not forget accepting our 'quota' of Merkel's invitees
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
This is such paranoid nonsense. With a 52:48 Remain vote Cameron would have still been PM and he based his campaign on never joining the Euro. As for Schengen, there was never any pressure for us to join it and we could stick with the other EU borderless zone, the CTA, indefinitely.
The real mistake was the renegotiation. Simply doing that implied that the EU was unacceptable as it stood, and that he would make the difference. All this achieved was muzzling those in favour of our membership, allowing those opposed to ask for the impossible, and for him looking daft when he came home with some technical proposals that couldn't be sold.
I think that sooner or later, Brexit would have taken place. Our relationship with the EU was transactional. a relatively small proportion of the population had any emotional commitment to the organisation.
I wouldn't have agreed with you on June 24th but do now - even as someone generally supportive of the EU I thought there would have been some more humility on such a great rebuff and some soul-searching about why they had been dumped. If there has been, it's been well-hidden. Had the referendum been 52:48 the other way, I can't imagine that we'd be seeing the phrase "the will of the people" on the pages of the Daily Mail or Brexiteer lips so much!
52:48 remain - shudder. I would imagine the pressure to sign up to some of the wackier EU ideas would now be building and then there would be the question of the budget! Oh yes, let's not forget accepting our 'quota' of Merkel's invitees
Nah, there would have been no legal or political basis for any of that (apart from the budget, although that's actually one area we have had some success in.) There would be no way that any treaty change would have got through the UK (both the Tory gvt and the 2011 referendum lock act) so it really would have been status quo for some years. What I think you would have had would have been a UKIP surge from angry Tories, instead of the Lib Dem surge from angry Tories (and fed up Labourites.)
I thought it was said many times that the Lisbon treaty would be the last for many years. All the changes would be made without needing a treaty change or new treaty
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
What a load of nonsense. We were actually in a very good position: out of Schengen, out of the Euro, out of the residency directive, out of a lot of the justice stuff, out of ever-closer union, the City protected against Eurozone hegemony, and - and this is the crucial bit - all of this formally accepted by all participants, for the first time ever. Effectively, we would have become an associate member but with full voting rights and with treaty protection.
Too late now, of course, but the irony is that we'd actually got pretty much the ideal arrangement, with the one (admittedly important) proviso that we were stuck with freedom of movement. Our Eurozone friends would have got on with their closer integration without involving us.
So basically foreign manufacturers who largely produce cars for the US market in the US do well and those who have relied upon imports from Mexico or Canada get thumped? Whatever the merits of these anti-free trade policies is that not rather the point?
The BMW decision to go ahead with their Mexico factory must be causing them a fair amount of angst.
The real mistake was the renegotiation. Simply doing that implied that the EU was unacceptable as it stood, and that he would make the difference. All this achieved was muzzling those in favour of our memberaship, allowing those opposed to ask for the impossible, and for him looking daft when he came home with some technical proposals that couldn't be sold.
Completely agree with that. The EU was a source of irritation and a long term concern but pretty far down my list of concerns in 2015. I agreed with almost all of what Cameron had said in his Bloomberg speech and hoped that the EU could be reformed to something closer to the UK's taste.
And then Cameron tried to negotiate some reforms. And it was embarrassing. And made it crystal clear that the bulk of the EU (or at least the bits that count) were completely committed to a path that I for one did not want to go down. It turned me from a very reluctant remainer into a leaver. It destroyed any hope that the EU might in future be a free trade organisation that left its members to get on with except to the extent that this caused market distortions.
I think that sooner or later, Brexit would have taken place. Our relationship with the EU was transactional. No more than a relatively small proportion of the population had any emotional commitment to the organisation.
I wouldn't have agreed with you on June 24th but do now - even as someone generally supportive of the EU I thought there would have been some more humility on such a great rebuff and some soul-searching about why they had been dumped. If there has been, it's been well-hidden. Had the referendum been 52:48 the other way, I can't imagine that we'd be seeing the phrase "the will of the people" on the pages of the Daily Mail or Brexiteer lips so much!
52:48 remain - shudder. I would imagine the pressure to sign up to some of the wackier EU ideas would now be building and then there would be the question of the budget! Oh yes, let's not forget accepting our 'quota' of Merkel's invitees
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
Not in a hundred years. Is there anyone other than the most hardcore Leaver saying this, or any evidence for it? Can you imagine what would have happened had Cameron lost his mind and decided either or these were a good idea, following a 52:48 vote? This really is leaver fantasy land.
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
What a load of nonsense. We were actually in a very good position: out of Schengen, out of the Euro, out of the residency directive, out of a lot of the justice stuff, out of ever-closer union, the City protected against Eurozone hegemony, and - and this is the crucial bit - all of this formally accepted by all participants, for the first time ever. Effectively, we would have become an associate member but with full voting rights and with treaty protection.
If you really believe all that would have survived for 5 minutes beyond a Remain vote I've got a bridge to sell you.
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
What a load of nonsense. We were actually in a very good position: out of Schengen, out of the Euro, out of the residency directive, out of a lot of the justice stuff, out of ever-closer union, the City protected against Eurozone hegemony, and - and this is the crucial bit - all of this formally accepted by all participants, for the first time ever. Effectively, we would have become an associate member but with full voting rights and with treaty protection.
If you really believe all that would have survived for 5 minutes beyond a Remain vote I've got a bridge to sell you.
Well, put it this way - it's a hell of lot more plausible than the nonsense about trade deals which some Leavers seem to have bought into.
And a zillion times more plausible than the suggestion that we'd somehow (how?) be forced into Schengen and the Euro!
I wouldn't have agreed with you on June 24th but do now - even as someone generally supportive of the EU I thought there would have been some more humility on such a great rebuff and some soul-searching about why they had been dumped. If there has been, it's been well-hidden. Had the referendum been 52:48 the other way, I can't imagine that we'd be seeing the phrase "the will of the people" on the pages of the Daily Mail or Brexiteer lips so much!
No you would have heard it on the lips of Eurocrats instead every time we grumbled about their latest wheeze. They would have asked us what we were grumbling about since being in the EU was clearly the will of the people, and by implication the people clearly approved of every and all things EU.
The speech from Tusk last week was breathtaking in its arrogance, it was a straight down the line harder, faster, more Europe, more integration, more EU foreign policy etc. Which completely destroys and remaining credibility of the people that tried to suggest there was a status quo element in Remaining. There were only ever two options, leaving, or staying with the program of ever closer union - the words not being in an documents as per Cameron's renegotiation is fatuous when we would have been surrendering competences to an expanding EU foreign ministry amongst others.
I can't argue with you on the arrogance of Tusks speech, but the idea that we'd have being doing any of that after a 52:48 remain vote is for the birds.
Mr. Nabavi, yet the eurozone had a QMV critical mass and there's no doubt the EU wanted dominion over financial regulation.
I agree Schengen/the single currency would not be on the agenda but plenty of other stuff would be, and I don't believe for a moment that 'ever closer union' would've been halted.
Nah, there would have been no legal or political basis for any of that (apart from the budget, although that's actually one area we have had some success in.) There would be no way that any treaty change would have got through the UK (both the Tory gvt and the 2011 referendum lock act) so it really would have been status quo for some years. What I think you would have had would have been a UKIP surge from angry Tories, instead of the Lib Dem surge from angry Tories (and fed up Labourites.)
The referendum lock is a joke, it has so many ways for minister to avoid it that it can be considered optional to all intents and purposes.
In anycase there would be no need to pass a new treaty, we have been recently exercises by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, but Article 48 is much more interesting in many ways, the so called passarelle clauses, which allow the terms of the Treaty to be amended without a new Treaty, just with consent of governments and the EU parliament, but without triggering the referendum lock act.
Mr. Nabavi, yet the eurozone had a QMV critical mass and there's no doubt the EU wanted dominion over financial regulation.
Indeed, which is precisely why the renegotiation deal was so important.
Anyway, too late now. Unlike Leavers, who seem completely obsessed with going over old ground, I accept that we are where we are. Better try to make the most of it, and mitigate the damage. With luck the economic hit won't be too bad, but there's still a very substantial risk that it will be, most notably if MPs try to stick their oar into what already is a fantastically difficult negotiation, or if the EU can't actually agree amongst themselves a deal which is in their own interests. The latter is the biggest risk of all.
Mr. Nabavi, yet the eurozone had a QMV critical mass and there's no doubt the EU wanted dominion over financial regulation.
I agree Schengen/the single currency would not be on the agenda but plenty of other stuff would be, and I don't believe for a moment that 'ever closer union' would've been halted.
QMV cannot under any circumstances be used to acquire new powers that are not already there in the treaties.
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
What a load of nonsense. We were actually in a very good position: out of Schengen, out of the Euro, out of the residency directive, out of a lot of the justice stuff, out of ever-closer union, the City protected against Eurozone hegemony, and - and this is the crucial bit - all of this formally accepted by all participants, for the first time ever. Effectively, we would have become an associate member but with full voting rights and with treaty protection.
Too late now, of course, but the irony is that we'd actually got pretty much the ideal arrangement, with the one (admittedly important) proviso that we were stuck with freedom of movement. Our Eurozone friends would have got on with their closer integration without involving us.
Do you actually, genuinely, believe that we were "out of ever-closer union"?
Mr. Nabavi, yet the eurozone had a QMV critical mass and there's no doubt the EU wanted dominion over financial regulation.
Indeed, which is precisely why the renegotiation deal was so important.
Anyway, too late now. Unlike Leavers, who seem completely obsessed with going over old ground, I accept that we are where we are. Better try to make the most of it, and mitigate the damage. With luck the economic hit won't be too bad, but there's still a very substantial risk that it will be, most notably if MPs try to stick their oar into what already is a fantastically difficult negotiation, or if the EU can't actually agree amongst themselves a deal which is in their own interests. The latter is the biggest risk of all.
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
What a load of nonsense. We were actually in a very good position: out of Schengen, out of the Euro, out of the residency directive, out of a lot of the justice stuff, out of ever-closer union, the City protected against Eurozone hegemony, and - and this is the crucial bit - all of this formally accepted by all participants, for the first time ever. Effectively, we would have become an associate member but with full voting rights and with treaty protection.
If you really believe all that would have survived for 5 minutes beyond a Remain vote I've got a bridge to sell you.
Well, put it this way - it's a hell of lot more plausible than the nonsense about trade deals which some Leavers seem to have bought into.
And a zillion times more plausible than the suggestion that we'd somehow (how?) be forced into Schengen and the Euro!
You're thinking in short timescales. I'm not. Sure on day 1 after Remain we'd still be out of the Euro. But what about when we next have a Gordon Brown in No.10? Or a coalition? The EU is a very patient one way ratchet. Nothing ever comes back and any tiny advance of federalism is banked and locked down. Sooner or later the establishment would have found a way to sell us some snake oil. And, just like Gordon Brown with Lisbon, they'd do it without asking for your permission and mine. Your post implies you have some trust in the EU machine. I have precisely none.
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
What a load of nonsense. We were actually in a very good position: out of Schengen, out of the Euro, out of the residency directive, out of a lot of the justice stuff, out of ever-closer union, the City protected against Eurozone hegemony, and - and this is the crucial bit - all of this formally accepted by all participants, for the first time ever. Effectively, we would have become an associate member but with full voting rights and with treaty protection.
If you really believe all that would have survived for 5 minutes beyond a Remain vote I've got a bridge to sell you.
Well, put it this way - it's a hell of lot more plausible than the nonsense about trade deals which some Leavers seem to have bought into.
And a zillion times more plausible than the suggestion that we'd somehow (how?) be forced into Schengen and the Euro!
You're thinking in short timescales. I'm not. Sure on day 1 after Remain we'd still be out of the Euro. But what about when we next have a Gordon Brown in No.10? Or a coalition? The EU is a very patient one way ratchet. Nothing ever comes back and any tiny advance of federalism is banked and locked down. Sooner or later the establishment would have found a way to sell us some snake oil. And, just like Gordon Brown with Lisbon, they'd do it without asking for your permission and mine. Your post implies you have some trust in the EU machine. I have precisely none.
Mr. Nabavi, yet the eurozone had a QMV critical mass and there's no doubt the EU wanted dominion over financial regulation.
Indeed, which is precisely why the renegotiation deal was so important.
Anyway, too late now. Unlike Leavers, who seem completely obsessed with going over old ground, I accept that we are where we are. Better try to make the most of it, and mitigate the damage. With luck the economic hit won't be too bad, but there's still a very substantial risk that it will be, most notably if MPs try to stick their oar into what already is a fantastically difficult negotiation, or if the EU can't actually agree amongst themselves a deal which is in their own interests. The latter is the biggest risk of all.
This is indeed where we all need to focus. The spilt milk brigade are irrelevant. I completely agree that finding someone in the EU that can say yes is going to be the hardest part. And they haven't even asked Wallonia yet!
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
What a load of nonsense. We were actually in a very good position: out of Schengen, out of the Euro, out of the residency directive, out of a lot of the justice stuff, out of ever-closer union, the City protected against Eurozone hegemony, and - and this is the crucial bit - all of this formally accepted by all participants, for the first time ever. Effectively, we would have become an associate member but with full voting rights and with treaty protection.
Too late now, of course, but the irony is that we'd actually got pretty much the ideal arrangement, with the one (admittedly important) proviso that we were stuck with freedom of movement. Our Eurozone friends would have got on with their closer integration without involving us.
Except it was all unenforceable bollocks. Ask the Danes.
The Danes were in exactly the same position before, when they rejected Maastricht there was a deal done in the CoE, and an agreement signed by all members, which made promises to the Danes and got them to approve Maastricht in a second referendum. Those promises have since been held to be contrary to the treaties and struck down by the ECJ.
Agreements in the Council of Europe are not part of the Treaties, the CJEU rules only in accordance with the treaties. The first time someone took the government to the CJEU over the emergency brake it would have lost on the basis of unlawful discrimination against citizens of another member state.
Mr. Nabavi, I remain unpersuaded the 'deal' was worth a damn.
Mr. Glenn, perhaps that's what it says. But, to be concise, I simply don't trust the EU.
If it had been an economic bloc with no political aspirations then it'd have 85%+ support. But the people of this country don't want to see sovereignty leeched away.
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
This is such paranoid nonsense. With a 52:48 Remain vote Cameron would have still been PM and he based his campaign on never joining the Euro. As for Schengen, there was never any pressure for us to join it and we could stick with the other EU borderless zone, the CTA, indefinitely.
Given that many of the Schengen nations are now (notionally temporarily) out of Schengen Three Quidder's argument that we would have been forced into it is certainly on of the more 'interesting' views I have seen on PB over the years.
No wonder Leave won – if even ostensibly intelligent people believe this sort of guff no wonder the millions of less bright individuals in the country bought it too.
Do you actually, genuinely, believe that we were "out of ever-closer union"?
Of course. Not only was that explicit in the agreement, but, more importantly, things had moved on politically. The huge sea-change was the slow realisation amongst our EU friends that we were never, ever going to be part of The Project. For years they'd convinced themselves that we were, just a bit more slowly than the core. The natural and obvious answer, which made political, administrative and economic sense, was to concentrate ever-closer union on the Eurozone.
What no thread on the greatest superbowl? Biased failing media...just because the Trumpian Patriots won.
As a rugby union fan, I just can't do a thread on American football.
All that padding and protection, it makes a worse spectacle than rugby league.
Seconded. I happened to be up feeding the baby during the fourth quarter and watched it through to full time. Impressive skills and athleticism but it's still a fundamentally boring and repetitive game. Couldn't be bothered with overtime.
And time-outs? Are these designed to just slow everything down and dissipate away any excitement that might have built to that point?
Time-outs are for icing the kicker. The "protection", specifically the helmets I'm quite sure makes the game actually more dangerous long term specifically with regards to brain injury. And there is nothing more boring in the whole of sport than a scrum that takes five minutes, I say that as someone who watches union.
Agreed, the Super Bowl goes on a bit too long, but I prefer American football to rugby.
Ugh, are you even British?
"Armored[sic] Rugby" is what I call American football.
Do you actually, genuinely, believe that we were "out of ever-closer union"?
Of course. Not only was that explicit in the agreement, but, more importantly, things had moved on politically. The huge sea-change was the slow realisation amongst our EU friends that we were never, ever going to be part of The Project. For years they'd convinced themselves that we were, just a bit more slowly than the core. The natural and obvious answer, which made political, administrative and economic sense, was to concentrate ever-closer union on the Eurozone.
So you didn't read Tusk's speech last week then ? And the level of general approval with which it was met in other European capitals ?
Do you actually, genuinely, believe that we were "out of ever-closer union"?
Of course. Not only was that explicit in the agreement, but, more importantly, things had moved on politically. The huge sea-change was the slow realisation amongst our EU friends that we were never, ever going to be part of The Project. For years they'd convinced themselves that we were, just a bit more slowly than the core. The natural and obvious answer, which made political, administrative and economic sense, was to concentrate ever-closer union on the Eurozone.
This credulousness is quite out of character from you. The agreement was meaningless (qv the Danish agreement to get Maastricht forced through) and, in the real world, the EU would have taken a Remain vote as a vote of confidence in the Project.
If it had been an economic bloc with no political aspirations then it'd have 85%+ support. But the people of this country don't want to see sovereignty leeched away.
We left an economic block with no political aspirations in the 70s because successive British governments judged that it wasn't working for us. They were right then, just as remaining in the EU is right for Britain now.
All the referendums in the world can't change geopolitical facts.
Your post implies you have some trust in the EU machine. I have precisely none.
My post implies nothing of the sort. There was simply no mechanism. A Treaty is a Treaty.
Of course, some future UK government could have signed us up to Schengen or the Euro. That would have been the UK's choice, and no-one else's. For that matter, if we'd voted Remain, some future UK government could still have taken us out of the EU, and after Brexit, some future UK government will still be able to reapply for the full Monty: Euro, Schengen and all.
So you didn't read Tusk's speech last week then ? And the level of general approval with which it was met in other European capitals ?
Of course, Brexit and Trump between them will promote closer union amongst our EU friends, without having to worry about us.
So what?
What you're missing is that to the frother Eurosceptic, anything that promotes closer European partnership is by definition a bad thing, even if it is to the benefit of the British people.
Mr. Nabavi, jein. Labour promised a referendum on Lisbon, won an election, then reneged. There was no democratic comeback or accountability or way to stop that (for some reason the millionaire judicial enthusiasts didn't feel like taking it to court). We joined Lisbon, without a vote, contrary to Labour's manifesto.
If it had been an economic bloc with no political aspirations then it'd have 85%+ support. But the people of this country don't want to see sovereignty leeched away.
We left an economic block with no political aspirations in the 70s because successive British governments judged that it wasn't working for us. They were right then, just as remaining in the EU is right for Britain now.
All the referendums in the world can't change geopolitical facts.
The 1970s have been and gone.
In 1980, the much smaller EU was 30% of the global economy. Once we leave it will be 12% at most.
Mr. Nabavi, jein. Labour promised a referendum on Lisbon, won an election, then reneged. There was no democratic comeback or accountability or way to stop that (for some reason the millionaire judicial enthusiasts didn't feel like taking it to court). We joined Lisbon, without a vote, contrary to Labour's manifesto.
No doubt, when he is PM, Tim Farron will take us back in!
So you didn't read Tusk's speech last week then ? And the level of general approval with which it was met in other European capitals ?
Of course, Brexit and Trump between them will promote closer union amongst our EU friends, without having to worry about us.
So what?
What you're missing is that to the frother Eurosceptic, anything that promotes closer European partnership is by definition a bad thing, even if it is to the benefit of the British people.
What you are missing is that to frother Europhiles, anything that promotes leaving the European partnership is by definition a bad thing, even if is has been explicitly voted for it in a referendum which was the largest democratic mandate given to any political action since the war.
Mr. Nabavi, jein. Labour promised a referendum on Lisbon, won an election, then reneged. There was no democratic comeback or accountability or way to stop that (for some reason the millionaire judicial enthusiasts didn't feel like taking it to court). We joined Lisbon, without a vote, contrary to Labour's manifesto.
They promised a referendum on the European Constitution which then got killed off by other countries. Twisting facts to suit your narrative doesn't paint you in a good light.
Mr. Nabavi, jein. Labour promised a referendum on Lisbon, won an election, then reneged. There was no democratic comeback or accountability or way to stop that (for some reason the millionaire judicial enthusiasts didn't feel like taking it to court). We joined Lisbon, without a vote, contrary to Labour's manifesto.
No doubt, when he is PM, Tim Farron will take us back in!
Mr. Nabavi, jein. Labour promised a referendum on Lisbon, won an election, then reneged. There was no democratic comeback or accountability or way to stop that (for some reason the millionaire judicial enthusiasts didn't feel like taking it to court). We joined Lisbon, without a vote, contrary to Labour's manifesto.
They promised a referendum on the European Constitution which then got killed off by other countries. Twisting facts to suit your narrative doesn't paint you in a good light.
Aside from the title, what was different ? Trying to gloss over blatant slight of hand tricks doesn't paint you in a good light either.
An expensive day for the Ukip MEP Jane Collins – the high court in London has ordered her to pay £54,000 each to three of Rotherham’s Labour MPs over a speech she made at the party’s 2014 conference about the town’s abuse scandal.
Collins, MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire said the MPs knew many of the details of the exploitation yet chose not to intervene, and instead acted on misplaced political correctness, the libel hearing heard.
Ouch. Add in 3 lots of costs (plus her own) and that is surely insolvency.
She has been abysmally advised, is utterly stupid or its a combination of both. As soon as legal action was threatened she should have been running a mile as there is absolutely no way the MPs would have proceeded on this if they were not totally in the clear.
There was simply no mechanism. A Treaty is a Treaty. Neville Chamberalain had a treaty to guarantee peace in his time. You're too credulous.
to the frother Eurosceptic, anything that promotes closer European partnership is by definition a bad thing Frother and proud. It's been our foreign policy for 500 years to stop a single power emerging on the continent - as that way lies repression and serfdom. I do indeed believe that a U.S.E. is a very bad thing for us and for its own disempowered serfs.
If it had been an economic bloc with no political aspirations then it'd have 85%+ support. But the people of this country don't want to see sovereignty leeched away.
We left an economic block with no political aspirations in the 70s because successive British governments judged that it wasn't working for us. They were right then, just as remaining in the EU is right for Britain now.
All the referendums in the world can't change geopolitical facts.
The 1970s have been and gone.
In 1980, the much smaller EU was 30% of the global economy. Once we leave it will be 12% at most.
That globalisation is an argument for abandoning domestic political structures is among the most wrong-headed propositions I've ever heard.
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
What a load of nonsense. We were actually in a very good position: out of Schengen, out of the Euro, out of the residency directive, out of a lot of the justice stuff, out of ever-closer union, the City protected against Eurozone hegemony, and - and this is the crucial bit - all of this formally accepted by all participants, for the first time ever. Effectively, we would have become an associate member but with full voting rights and with treaty protection.
Too late now, of course, but the irony is that we'd actually got pretty much the ideal arrangement, with the one (admittedly important) proviso that we were stuck with freedom of movement. Our Eurozone friends would have got on with their closer integration without involving us.
Except it was all unenforceable bollocks. Ask the Danes.
The Danes were in exactly the same position before, when they rejected Maastricht there was a deal done in the CoE, and an agreement signed by all members, which made promises to the Danes and got them to approve Maastricht in a second referendum. Those promises have since been held to be contrary to the treaties and struck down by the ECJ.
Agreements in the Council of Europe are not part of the Treaties, the CJEU rules only in accordance with the treaties. The first time someone took the government to the CJEU over the emergency brake it would have lost on the basis of unlawful discrimination against citizens of another member state.
Out of curiosity what case did the Danes lose and on what?
My understanding was that the Edinburgh Agreement which was what the Danes agreed had been not only honoured but the bulk of it was then included in the Amsterdam Treaty next time the Treaties were updated.
Frother and proud. It's been our foreign policy for 500 years to stop a single power emerging on the continent - as that way lies repression and serfdom. I do indeed believe that a U.S.E. is a very bad thing for us and for its own disempowered serfs.
If that's how you feel then advocating Brexit is positively moronic since you help bring about the very thing you most fear.
Not a fan of how much of videogames is developing, as regards micro-transactions. This sort of gambling is not something I know much about because I hardly ever buy DLC (going to get The Witcher 3's one day) and these games aren't my thing either.
On topic: My current, somewhat conflicted and conflicting, position on Brexit:
Plan A has to be to make Brexit succeed, in line with the referendum.
Snip
Options for a Remain rearguard should be prepared for as a plan B, but only for the event that the economic and/or geopolitical environment becomes very hostile come the end of A50 negotiations and public attitude to Brexit has changed as a result.
Assuming Article 50 is enacted somewhen in March as expected, there are one of four possible outcomes
1) We do a deal with the EU27 and leave 2) We dont do a deal with the EU27 and leave to WTO terms 3) The CJEU rules that we can reverse Art 50, and at some point we chicken out and do so 4) We dont do a deal and persuade all the other 27 to extend the negotiating period
Snip
Anyone who thinks BrExit is going to be a disaster should follow Napoleon's maxim, largely because they can't do much to improve it and might just end up carrying the can for it.
I suspect legally that A50 is more likely to be revocable than not, but you are correct that (3) is not an easy ask politically even if I am right on that, which is why it needs to be contingency planned / plotted now. There are 3 ways we could 'chicken out':
(1) May's government chickens out and calls a second referendum. There is a political price to be paid somewhere down the line, and as you say there could also be an argument that the UK has negotiated in bad faith.
(2) There is an internal challenge to May from remainer Tories, and a new leader revokes. In extremis this could happen, but it is difficult to envisage the extremes needed to turn the Tory base without also turning May.
(3) A vote of confidence removes May as PM. Very, very hard but just about possible with parliament as it stands. It might require at least a few Tory MPs to either vote against their own government or resign their seats at the key moment. An attempt to form a new government would preceed any GE, and it is then just possible a cross-party caretaker Remain government could be pulled together for a short-time on the sole platform of a second referendum and revocation. The difficulty would be how Tories can accede to this in an environment where their well would be seriously poisoned, perhaps the best that can be hoped for is that a few of them, having been loyal to that point, abstain from bringing the new government down.
Every one of these paths is fraught, (1) is largely out of Remainers' hands, (3) needs a lot of strands to come together, but can be planned, and (2) is almost inconceivable.
Quite apart from respect for the referendum result itself, the difficulty is why it will need extreme circumstances to drive an attempt at reversal.
An expensive day for the Ukip MEP Jane Collins – the high court in London has ordered her to pay £54,000 each to three of Rotherham’s Labour MPs over a speech she made at the party’s 2014 conference about the town’s abuse scandal.
Collins, MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire said the MPs knew many of the details of the exploitation yet chose not to intervene, and instead acted on misplaced political correctness, the libel hearing heard.
Ouch. Add in 3 lots of costs (plus her own) and that is surely insolvency.
She has been abysmally advised, is utterly stupid or its a combination of both. As soon as legal action was threatened she should have been running a mile as there is absolutely no way the MPs would have proceeded on this if they were not totally in the clear.
Frother and proud. It's been our foreign policy for 500 years to stop a single power emerging on the continent - as that way lies repression and serfdom. I do indeed believe that a U.S.E. is a very bad thing for us and for its own disempowered serfs.
If that's how you feel then advocating Brexit is positively moronic since you help bring about the very thing you most fear.
Not really we show by example now that there is nothing to fear being outside the nascent state. If we thrive outside then others can follow.
Frother and proud. It's been our foreign policy for 500 years to stop a single power emerging on the continent - as that way lies repression and serfdom. I do indeed believe that a U.S.E. is a very bad thing for us and for its own disempowered serfs.
If that's how you feel then advocating Brexit is positively moronic since you help bring about the very thing you most fear.
I would MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH rather that they form a U.S.E. with us on the outside than that we stay in. And...I flatly disagree. I think Brexit is alot more likely to embolden the sceptics elsewhere in the EU. Their elites are digging in. The people...not so much.
"She says there was an agreement that there should be an early reciprocal agreement on the rights of EU nationals in the UK, and of Britons on the continent. That is why a unilateral declaration from the UK would be a bad idea, she says."
Six Nations is in rude health thanks to airing of national antagonisms
The tournament has the world’s highest average attendance and full stadiums reflect a chance to indulge in idle chauvinism as much as the quality of rugby
With a 52:48 Remain vote, by now we'd have seen strong moves to join the euro and sign up to Schengen.
What a load of nonsense. We were actually in a very good position: out of Schengen, out of the Euro, out of the residency directive, out of a lot of the justice stuff, out of ever-closer union, the City protected against Eurozone hegemony, and - and this is the crucial bit - all of this formally accepted by all participants, for the first time ever. Effectively, we would have become an associate member but with full voting rights and with treaty protection.
Too late now, of course, but the irony is that we'd actually got pretty much the ideal arrangement, with the one (admittedly important) proviso that we were stuck with freedom of movement. Our Eurozone friends would have got on with their closer integration without involving us.
Except it was all unenforceable bollocks. Ask the Danes.
The Danes were in exactly the same position before, when they rejected Maastricht there was a deal done in the CoE, and an agreement signed by all members, which made promises to the Danes and got them to approve Maastricht in a second referendum. Those promises have since been held to be contrary to the treaties and struck down by the ECJ.
Agreements in the Council of Europe are not part of the Treaties, the CJEU rules only in accordance with the treaties. The first time someone took the government to the CJEU over the emergency brake it would have lost on the basis of unlawful discrimination against citizens of another member state.
Out of curiosity what case did the Danes lose and on what?
My understanding was that the Edinburgh Agreement which was what the Danes agreed had been not only honoured but the bulk of it was then included in the Amsterdam Treaty next time the Treaties were updated.
The Danes had an agreement that EU Citizenship would not replace National Citizenship, and that National Law alone would determine if a person possessed national citizenship. It was initially struck down by the CJEU in this ruling, but has been confirmed in many others:
An expensive day for the Ukip MEP Jane Collins – the high court in London has ordered her to pay £54,000 each to three of Rotherham’s Labour MPs over a speech she made at the party’s 2014 conference about the town’s abuse scandal.
Collins, MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire said the MPs knew many of the details of the exploitation yet chose not to intervene, and instead acted on misplaced political correctness, the libel hearing heard.
Ouch. Add in 3 lots of costs (plus her own) and that is surely insolvency.
She has been abysmally advised, is utterly stupid or its a combination of both. As soon as legal action was threatened she should have been running a mile as there is absolutely no way the MPs would have proceeded on this if they were not totally in the clear.
Apparently she tried to claim immunity as an MEP.... Guess that didnt work out so well.
After a summit in Malta at which all national leaders discussed plans for a formal declaration in March on the future of the bloc following Britain's departure, Merkel and others offered endorsements of a so-called "multispeed Europe", which some governments fear could damage EU unity in the wake of Brexit.
......
French President Francois Hollande said he thought that the Rome statement could mention "several speeds" as a possible way forward, though he stressed: "European unity is essential."
In a reminder of divisions in the bloc, Hollande, who will step down in May, took a dig at East European states which Paris complains fail to honor commitments -- such as taking in asylum-seekers -- while accepting big subsidies from Brussels:
"Europe isn't a cash-box, not a self-service restaurant, a Europe where you come and take what you need, where you take your structural funds or get access to the internal market and then show no solidarity at all in return," he told reporters.
"Europe was built to be stronger together and it's that rule, that principle, which should be driven home in March."
"Multi-speed" is clearly the agreed euphemism to cover the fact that the 27 are as united as a herd of cats. A U.S.E. is fantasy. Contrary to Hollande's quoted words a free buffet, where each diner takes what he wants and leaves what he doesn't, and Germany and France pick up the tab, is exactly what is contemplated. Does anyone really think that nations which fall short on their 2% contributions to Nato are going to cough up for a European defence force?
An expensive day for the Ukip MEP Jane Collins – the high court in London has ordered her to pay £54,000 each to three of Rotherham’s Labour MPs over a speech she made at the party’s 2014 conference about the town’s abuse scandal.
Collins, MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire said the MPs knew many of the details of the exploitation yet chose not to intervene, and instead acted on misplaced political correctness, the libel hearing heard.
Ouch. Add in 3 lots of costs (plus her own) and that is surely insolvency.
She has been abysmally advised, is utterly stupid or its a combination of both. As soon as legal action was threatened she should have been running a mile as there is absolutely no way the MPs would have proceeded on this if they were not totally in the clear.
Apparently she tried to claim immunity as an MEP.... Guess that didnt work out so well.
I expect the Judge gave that argument very short shrift. I wonder if she represented herself.
Yoons definitely not crapping it at the prospect of Indy ref II. No siree.
'Jill Stephenson: ‘No’ means no, I’m not a traitor to Scotland
Momentous change requires unequivocal endorsement. The conditions for any future referendum should include the requirement that at least 60 per cent of the vote be cast for major change before it can be contemplated.'
After a summit in Malta at which all national leaders discussed plans for a formal declaration in March on the future of the bloc following Britain's departure, Merkel and others offered endorsements of a so-called "multispeed Europe", which some governments fear could damage EU unity in the wake of Brexit.
......
French President Francois Hollande said he thought that the Rome statement could mention "several speeds" as a possible way forward, though he stressed: "European unity is essential."
In a reminder of divisions in the bloc, Hollande, who will step down in May, took a dig at East European states which Paris complains fail to honor commitments -- such as taking in asylum-seekers -- while accepting big subsidies from Brussels:
"Europe isn't a cash-box, not a self-service restaurant, a Europe where you come and take what you need, where you take your structural funds or get access to the internal market and then show no solidarity at all in return," he told reporters.
"Europe was built to be stronger together and it's that rule, that principle, which should be driven home in March."
"Multi-speed" is clearly the agreed euphemism to cover the fact that the 27 are as united as a herd of cats. A U.S.E. is fantasy. Contrary to Hollande's quoted words a free buffet, where each diner takes what he wants and leaves what he doesn't, and Germany and France pick up the tab, is exactly what is contemplated. Does anyone really think that nations which fall short on their 2% contributions to Nato are going to cough up for a European defence force?
Multi-speed, of course, still implies a common destination.
An expensive day for the Ukip MEP Jane Collins – the high court in London has ordered her to pay £54,000 each to three of Rotherham’s Labour MPs over a speech she made at the party’s 2014 conference about the town’s abuse scandal.
Collins, MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire said the MPs knew many of the details of the exploitation yet chose not to intervene, and instead acted on misplaced political correctness, the libel hearing heard.
Ouch. Add in 3 lots of costs (plus her own) and that is surely insolvency.
She has been abysmally advised, is utterly stupid or its a combination of both. As soon as legal action was threatened she should have been running a mile as there is absolutely no way the MPs would have proceeded on this if they were not totally in the clear.
Apparently she tried to claim immunity as an MEP.... Guess that didnt work out so well.
Whose damn silly idea was that? She didn’t even the protection of making her statement in the Parliament.
Yes, we too could be firing test weights off our uncommissioned carrier.
The US EMALS system also has some rather significant problems that have existed for some time. They'll almost certainly fix them, but they haven't tested fixes so far. Which is odd, given the length of time the project has been ongoing.
We also developed our own prototype EMAL system - EMKIT, which was to become a 'proper' sysrem called EMCAT. The MOD then decided that US system was less risky.
After a summit in Malta at which all national leaders discussed plans for a formal declaration in March on the future of the bloc following Britain's departure, Merkel and others offered endorsements of a so-called "multispeed Europe", which some governments fear could damage EU unity in the wake of Brexit.
......
French President Francois Hollande said he thought that the Rome statement could mention "several speeds" as a possible way forward, though he stressed: "European unity is essential."
In a reminder of divisions in the bloc, Hollande, who will step down in May, took a dig at East European states which Paris complains fail to honor commitments -- such as taking in asylum-seekers -- while accepting big subsidies from Brussels:
"Europe isn't a cash-box, not a self-service restaurant, a Europe where you come and take what you need, where you take your structural funds or get access to the internal market and then show no solidarity at all in return," he told reporters.
"Europe was built to be stronger together and it's that rule, that principle, which should be driven home in March."
"Multi-speed" is clearly the agreed euphemism to cover the fact that the 27 are as united as a herd of cats. A U.S.E. is fantasy. Contrary to Hollande's quoted words a free buffet, where each diner takes what he wants and leaves what he doesn't, and Germany and France pick up the tab, is exactly what is contemplated. Does anyone really think that nations which fall short on their 2% contributions to Nato are going to cough up for a European defence force?
Multi-speed, of course, still implies a common destination.
If it's on parallel lines, it implies never meeting up at the same destination.
After a summit in Malta at which all national leaders discussed plans for a formal declaration in March on the future of the bloc following Britain's departure, Merkel and others offered endorsements of a so-called "multispeed Europe", which some governments fear could damage EU unity in the wake of Brexit.
......
French President Francois Hollande said he thought that the Rome statement could mention "several speeds" as a possible way forward, though he stressed: "European unity is essential."
In a reminder of divisions in the bloc, Hollande, who will step down in May, took a dig at East European states which Paris complains fail to honor commitments -- such as taking in asylum-seekers -- while accepting big subsidies from Brussels:
"Europe isn't a cash-box, not a self-service restaurant, a Europe where you come and take what you need, where you take your structural funds or get access to the internal market and then show no solidarity at all in return," he told reporters.
"Europe was built to be stronger together and it's that rule, that principle, which should be driven home in March."
"Multi-speed" is clearly the agreed euphemism to cover the fact that the 27 are as united as a herd of cats. A U.S.E. is fantasy. Contrary to Hollande's quoted words a free buffet, where each diner takes what he wants and leaves what he doesn't, and Germany and France pick up the tab, is exactly what is contemplated. Does anyone really think that nations which fall short on their 2% contributions to Nato are going to cough up for a European defence force?
Multi-speed, of course, still implies a common destination.
If it's on parallel lines, it implies never meeting up at the same destination.
After a summit in Malta at which all national leaders discussed plans for a formal declaration in March on the future of the bloc following Britain's departure, Merkel and others offered endorsements of a so-called "multispeed Europe", which some governments fear could damage EU unity in the wake of Brexit.
......
French President Francois Hollande said he thought that the Rome statement could mention "several speeds" as a possible way forward, though he stressed: "European unity is essential."
In a reminder of divisions in the bloc, Hollande, who will step down in May, took a dig at East European states which Paris complains fail to honor commitments -- such as taking in asylum-seekers -- while accepting big subsidies from Brussels:
"Europe isn't a cash-box, not a self-service restaurant, a Europe where you come and take what you need, where you take your structural funds or get access to the internal market and then show no solidarity at all in return," he told reporters.
"Europe was built to be stronger together and it's that rule, that principle, which should be driven home in March."
"Multi-speed" is clearly the agreed euphemism to cover the fact that the 27 are as united as a herd of cats. A U.S.E. is fantasy. Contrary to Hollande's quoted words a free buffet, where each diner takes what he wants and leaves what he doesn't, and Germany and France pick up the tab, is exactly what is contemplated. Does anyone really think that nations which fall short on their 2% contributions to Nato are going to cough up for a European defence force?
Multi-speed, of course, still implies a common destination.
No. If it was multi-velocity it would imply there was a direction (vector) involved. Even then, those vectors might be converging, diverging, or parallel. Speed is oblivious of direction.
Mr. Nabavi, jein. Labour promised a referendum on Lisbon, won an election, then reneged. There was no democratic comeback or accountability or way to stop that (for some reason the millionaire judicial enthusiasts didn't feel like taking it to court). We joined Lisbon, without a vote, contrary to Labour's manifesto.
But the treaty that the promised referendum was to be held on had already been rejected in France and another country (Holland?). So it was an example of how democracy works in the EU. Not perfect, but until we sort out the House of Lords we are not in much of a position to feel superior.
Comments
Doesn't "ils sont comme cul et chemise" translate to the English expression "they are as thick as thieves" ? Which carries the implication that they might be up to no good together
Agreed that Cambs/Pboro is daft.
But Gtr Manchester and Gtr Liverpool make a lot of sense.
Is there a Mayoral suggestion for Essex, does anyone know?
He said they always act like like
1) all Pakistani heritage people are paedos, which contrasts starkly with the experiences of people who actually live in Rotherham
2) Paedophilia/child abuse only began in this country with immigration
3) Sex crimes have never been covered up in this country until Rotherham, ignoring the events in the Catholic church, Jimmy Savile et al.
It also sounded a lot like the EDL protestors that came to Rotherham, who then buggered off when the locals ignored/told them to feck off.
Even after one of the victims told UKIP to stop stirring, they kept on with it.
Perhaps this might help UKIP to do better in Rotherham/South Yorkshire.
Eurozone economy outshines the US.
The speech from Tusk last week was breathtaking in its arrogance, it was a straight down the line harder, faster, more Europe, more integration, more EU foreign policy etc. Which completely destroys and remaining credibility of the people that tried to suggest there was a status quo element in Remaining. There were only ever two options, leaving, or staying with the program of ever closer union - the words not being in an documents as per Cameron's renegotiation is fatuous when we would have been surrendering competences to an expanding EU foreign ministry amongst others.
We had Nick P having the freedom to voice his true left politics and now william glenn free to voice his never ending love affair with everything EU
Only one more freedom to be stated and we'll have our own 4 freedoms of Brexit
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2017/2/6/surprise-trump-could-be-fantastic-for-honda-and-toyota.-mazda-and-vw-total-disaster
Brexit is an opportunity to reverse the tragic decline of marriage in Britain
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/brexit-opportunity-reverse-tragic-decline-marriage-britain/
Too late now, of course, but the irony is that we'd actually got pretty much the ideal arrangement, with the one (admittedly important) proviso that we were stuck with freedom of movement. Our Eurozone friends would have got on with their closer integration without involving us.
The BMW decision to go ahead with their Mexico factory must be causing them a fair amount of angst.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/67/contents/made
And a zillion times more plausible than the suggestion that we'd somehow (how?) be forced into Schengen and the Euro!
I agree Schengen/the single currency would not be on the agenda but plenty of other stuff would be, and I don't believe for a moment that 'ever closer union' would've been halted.
In anycase there would be no need to pass a new treaty, we have been recently exercises by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, but Article 48 is much more interesting in many ways, the so called passarelle clauses, which allow the terms of the Treaty to be amended without a new Treaty, just with consent of governments and the EU parliament, but without triggering the referendum lock act.
Anyway, too late now. Unlike Leavers, who seem completely obsessed with going over old ground, I accept that we are where we are. Better try to make the most of it, and mitigate the damage. With luck the economic hit won't be too bad, but there's still a very substantial risk that it will be, most notably if MPs try to stick their oar into what already is a fantastically difficult negotiation, or if the EU can't actually agree amongst themselves a deal which is in their own interests. The latter is the biggest risk of all.
The Danes were in exactly the same position before, when they rejected Maastricht there was a deal done in the CoE, and an agreement signed by all members, which made promises to the Danes and got them to approve Maastricht in a second referendum. Those promises have since been held to be contrary to the treaties and struck down by the ECJ.
Agreements in the Council of Europe are not part of the Treaties, the CJEU rules only in accordance with the treaties. The first time someone took the government to the CJEU over the emergency brake it would have lost on the basis of unlawful discrimination against citizens of another member state.
Mr. Glenn, perhaps that's what it says. But, to be concise, I simply don't trust the EU.
If it had been an economic bloc with no political aspirations then it'd have 85%+ support. But the people of this country don't want to see sovereignty leeched away.
No wonder Leave won – if even ostensibly intelligent people believe this sort of guff no wonder the millions of less bright individuals in the country bought it too.
All the referendums in the world can't change geopolitical facts.
Of course, some future UK government could have signed us up to Schengen or the Euro. That would have been the UK's choice, and no-one else's. For that matter, if we'd voted Remain, some future UK government could still have taken us out of the EU, and after Brexit, some future UK government will still be able to reapply for the full Monty: Euro, Schengen and all.
So what?
In 1980, the much smaller EU was 30% of the global economy. Once we leave it will be 12% at most.
Mr. Nabavi, spare us the nightmarish madness!
Neville Chamberalain had a treaty to guarantee peace in his time. You're too credulous.
to the frother Eurosceptic, anything that promotes closer European partnership is by definition a bad thing
Frother and proud. It's been our foreign policy for 500 years to stop a single power emerging on the continent - as that way lies repression and serfdom. I do indeed believe that a U.S.E. is a very bad thing for us and for its own disempowered serfs.
Because I love the EU so much* it's got a Polish flavour.
*By which I mean The Witcher 3, obviously.
My understanding was that the Edinburgh Agreement which was what the Danes agreed had been not only honoured but the bulk of it was then included in the Amsterdam Treaty next time the Treaties were updated.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38879969
Not a fan of how much of videogames is developing, as regards micro-transactions. This sort of gambling is not something I know much about because I hardly ever buy DLC (going to get The Witcher 3's one day) and these games aren't my thing either.
(1) May's government chickens out and calls a second referendum. There is a political price to be paid somewhere down the line, and as you say there could also be an argument that the UK has negotiated in bad faith.
(2) There is an internal challenge to May from remainer Tories, and a new leader revokes. In extremis this could happen, but it is difficult to envisage the extremes needed to turn the Tory base without also turning May.
(3) A vote of confidence removes May as PM. Very, very hard but just about possible with parliament as it stands. It might require at least a few Tory MPs to either vote against their own government or resign their seats at the key moment. An attempt to form a new government would preceed any GE, and it is then just possible a cross-party caretaker Remain government could be pulled together for a short-time on the sole platform of a second referendum and revocation. The difficulty would be how Tories can accede to this in an environment where their well would be seriously poisoned, perhaps the best that can be hoped for is that a few of them, having been loyal to that point, abstain from bringing the new government down.
Every one of these paths is fraught, (1) is largely out of Remainers' hands, (3) needs a lot of strands to come together, but can be planned, and (2) is almost inconceivable.
Quite apart from respect for the referendum result itself, the difficulty is why it will need extreme circumstances to drive an attempt at reversal.
And...I flatly disagree. I think Brexit is alot more likely to embolden the sceptics elsewhere in the EU. Their elites are digging in. The people...not so much.
As soon as please May
Six Nations is in rude health thanks to airing of national antagonisms
The tournament has the world’s highest average attendance and full stadiums reflect a chance to indulge in idle chauvinism as much as the quality of rugby
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/feb/06/six-nations-full-stadiums-national-antagonisms
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/feb/06/us-popcorn-exports-mexican-cinema-free-trade-renegotiations
The Danes had an agreement that EU Citizenship would not replace National Citizenship, and that National Law alone would determine if a person possessed national citizenship. It was initially struck down by the CJEU in this ruling, but has been confirmed in many others:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1443963656228&uri=CELEX:61999CJ0184
There was a research document done by VLTC on it, give me a minute I will see if I can find it
EDIT: The full briefing is at the bottom of this summary, seems it was 79 times.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/the_79_times_that_the_ecj_has_ignored_the_danish_renegotiation.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOijb3JPCe4
I'd rather be in the dark.
3 feb 2017
After a summit in Malta at which all national leaders discussed plans for a formal declaration in March on the future of the bloc following Britain's departure, Merkel and others offered endorsements of a so-called "multispeed Europe", which some governments fear could damage EU unity in the wake of Brexit.
......
French President Francois Hollande said he thought that the Rome statement could mention "several speeds" as a possible way forward, though he stressed: "European unity is essential."
In a reminder of divisions in the bloc, Hollande, who will step down in May, took a dig at East European states which Paris complains fail to honor commitments -- such as taking in asylum-seekers -- while accepting big subsidies from Brussels:
"Europe isn't a cash-box, not a self-service restaurant, a Europe where you come and take what you need, where you take your structural funds or get access to the internal market and then show no solidarity at all in return," he told reporters.
"Europe was built to be stronger together and it's that rule, that principle, which should be driven home in March."
"Multi-speed" is clearly the agreed euphemism to cover the fact that the 27 are as united as a herd of cats. A U.S.E. is fantasy. Contrary to Hollande's quoted words a free buffet, where each diner takes what he wants and leaves what he doesn't, and Germany and France pick up the tab, is exactly what is contemplated. Does anyone really think that nations which fall short on their 2% contributions to Nato are going to cough up for a European defence force?
'Jill Stephenson: ‘No’ means no, I’m not a traitor to Scotland
Momentous change requires unequivocal endorsement. The conditions for any future referendum should include the requirement that at least 60 per cent of the vote be cast for major change before it can be contemplated.'
http://tinyurl.com/hxwasfh
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38878088
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/828636211556253697
The US EMALS system also has some rather significant problems that have existed for some time. They'll almost certainly fix them, but they haven't tested fixes so far. Which is odd, given the length of time the project has been ongoing.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/navy/2016cvn78.pdf
We also developed our own prototype EMAL system - EMKIT, which was to become a 'proper' sysrem called EMCAT. The MOD then decided that US system was less risky.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/05/whatever-happened-emcat/
France's Fillon apologizes to French people, says it was an error of judgement regarding the employment of family members.