If Labour lose Manchester Gorton under these circumstances then they are on course for their worst result since at least 1906. The party would be well and truly over and historians of the future would bookend the 'Labour century' from 1918 (when fear of Labour led the Unionists into a renewed coalition with Lloyd George) to 2015 (which will have been the last time Labour were challengers for power). The irony of course is that at no point until the time of Tony Blair did they hold power for more than six years - yet that will still have been the century of 'organised Labour' and much ink will doubtless be spilled explaining how this had an impact far beyond their time in government.
But surely even Labour can't lose this one. Surely.
Labour - admittedly on different boundaries - very nearly lost this seat in 1955 - 1959 - and the November 1967 by election!
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Do you not understand how to use google? I don't want to go on at you, but you have a silly little avatar designed to suggest that you diligently search after truth, whereas you can't in reality be arsed to conduct the, literally, 30 seconds worth of investigation which would show you that Gove said that staying in the EU would open our borders to 88 million people, being the citizens of Turkey and four other countries. Does that really appear to you to be equivalent to saying that 88 million Turks are coming here? Or is it something you would like to be true, so you'll say it is true, cos that's what logical searchers after truth do with facts?
Cameron also did say, in substance, that Brexit heightens the risk of major intra-European conflict, which it seems to me cashes out as a ww3 warning, as that's how it started the last 2 times. Again, google it, if you know how to. It is apart from anything else bloody bad manners to post palpably untrue statements here.
Was it only Gove and Cameron who were making statements for their respective sides? I was under the impression that most of the Tory top brass was at it - even Mrs may.
Well, you tell me. Again, I expect a judicious use of Google or your other search engine of choice will help you here. I have not been able to find anyone saying something so stratospherically silly as 88 million Turks were coming here, but anything's possible.
There's a great one of Cameron on Marr on 12 June explicitly saying leaving the EU meant leaving the single market
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Do you not understand how to use google? I don't want to go on at you, but you have a silly little avatar designed to suggest that you diligently search after truth, whereas you can't in reality be arsed to conduct the, literally, 30 seconds worth of investigation which would show you that Gove said that staying in the EU would open our borders to 88 million people, being the citizens of Turkey and four other countries. Does that really appear to you to be equivalent to saying that 88 million Turks are coming here? Or is it something you would like to be true, so you'll say it is true, cos that's what logical searchers after truth do with facts?
Cameron also did say, in substance, that Brexit heightens the risk of major intra-European conflict, which it seems to me cashes out as a ww3 warning, as that's how it started the last 2 times. Again, google it, if you know how to. It is apart from anything else bloody bad manners to post palpably untrue statements here.
Was it only Gove and Cameron who were making statements for their respective sides? I was under the impression that most of the Tory top brass was at it - even Mrs may.
Well, you tell me. Again, I expect a judicious use of Google or your other search engine of choice will help you here. I have not been able to find anyone saying something so stratospherically silly as 88 million Turks were coming here, but anything's possible.
What do those footsteps represent?
SNIP
Perhaps you'd like to defend this one? Apparently Britain's border is with any country that adjoins another country that has a visa waiver programme, not with the UK, but with the Schengen zone.
In Stalin's era, whoever was seen to be the first to stop clapping was often taken out and shot. Hence the ovations to his speeches often lasted longer than the speech. I guess May has to use gentler methods?
Theresa May: "When this great union of nations sets its mind to something and works together with determination, we are an unstoppable force."
I know I'm biased against Brexit, but seriously, does anyone not think she's pogoing the shark with this ludicrous rhetoric?
It's cliché ridden nonsense but no worse than anything Blair, Cameron, Major or Thatcher could have used. It's mawkish sentimentality aimed at those who still think Britain has an empire and matters in the world - in a sense, it's the thrust of "Global Britain".
When we voted LEAVE on 23/6/16, it was my fervent hope it would start a proper debate about our place in the world and the kind of people we are and want to be as well as the society in which we would want to live. Probably because of fatigue from the EU Referendum that debate hasn't started - most people have withdrawn and just want the whole thing to be over with as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, life and international relations don't work that way.
Quite apart from the awful events at Westminster, much the most troubling aspect of the week for me was the nauseating behaviour of so-called English "fans" during the match with Germany in Dortmund.
The worrying thing was our cultural references and identity remain mired in the period 1940-45. Only someone over 90 years old could have fought in that conflict and only someone over 80 could remember it. Now, that's still a lot of people and their experiences and sacrifices cannot and must not be forgotten but nor can it form and frame the identity of a nation more than 70 years later and yet it does.
Dean Acheson's comment in 1962 is as valid now as it was then. We tried perhaps to find a new role as part of the emerging western European concensus and militarily we were part of the NATO Alliance which until the collapse of Communism in 1989 kept us at peace and allowed us to enjoy more than 40 years of unparalleled prosperity.
Culturally and socially, however, we remain lost, often harking back to days of empire and clinging to other English-speaking countries just as they once clung to us but Australia and New Zealand, though they mean well, have other concerns and are not the countries or societies they were or we perhaps imagine. Auckland is an Asian city and becoming more so.
Cameron tried to say it on 8th May when he put out advance copies of his speech for the following day and was greeted by such ridicule in the press that he dropped it from the speech.
Both sides lied in the referendum campaign - the biggest lie of all being Cameron's non- renegotiation and the claim that there would be no further integration if we voted to Remain. Of course you ignore those lies because it doesn't suit your narrative.
And the idea that an immediate recession and the emergency budget were only prevented by a bit of tinkering by the BOE is ludicrous. Just like most other Remaniac claims.
You're not still sticking to that old tale? There was no 'ghost speech' which was withdrawn. It was just Boris making it up.
Nope the Telegraph, The Mirror, Sky News and many other sources all quoted it. The Guardian ran an article entitled "Is David Cameron right that leaving EU could increase the risk of war?"
So do stop lying Stark. You already look foolish for your blind Europhilia. Don't add revisionism to your tally of idiocies.
It was actually extremely clever by Leave, Boris in particular. Peace and stability in Europe can certainly in part be attributed to EU co-operation, and Dave was entitled to point this out. However, for Boris then to assert that the claim was that Brexit would cause the Third World War reduced it to an absurdity, leaving one of Remain's most powerful arguments in tatters. That much of the press went along with it just shows what a great media operation Leave had and that Boris can play them like a fiddle.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Do you not understand how to use google? I don't want to go on at you, but you have a silly little avatar designed to suggest that you diligently search after truth, whereas you can't in reality be arsed to conduct the, literally, 30 seconds worth of investigation which would show you that Gove said that staying in the EU would open our borders to 88 million people, being the citizens of Turkey and four other countries. Does that really appear to you to be equivalent to saying that 88 million Turks are coming here? Or is it something you would like to be true, so you'll say it is true, cos that's what logical searchers after truth do with facts?
Cameron also did say, in substance, that Brexit heightens the risk of major intra-European conflict, which it seems to me cashes out as a ww3 warning, as that's how it started the last 2 times. Again, google it, if you know how to. It is apart from anything else bloody bad manners to post palpably untrue statements here.
Was it only Gove and Cameron who were making statements for their respective sides? I was under the impression that most of the Tory top brass was at it - even Mrs may.
Well, you tell me. Again, I expect a judicious use of Google or your other search engine of choice will help you here. I have not been able to find anyone saying something so stratospherically silly as 88 million Turks were coming here, but anything's possible.
What do those footsteps represent?
Perhaps you'd like to defend this one? Apparently Britain's border is with any country that adjoins another country that has a visa waiver programme, not with the UK, but with the Schengen zone.
Turkey *was* / is in the process of joining. That they seem to be unable to fill their obligations to process their membership does not impede this truth.
Turkey is a candidate country to join the EU and is currently in formal accession negotiations.
In Stalin's era, whoever was seen to be the first to stop clapping was often taken out and shot. Hence the ovations to his speeches often lasted longer than the speech. I guess May has to use gentler methods?
That Charles Grant paper is also very revealing. Compare and contrast these two bits of the 'Key Findings' (page 7):
EU officials are pessimistic because they observe the pressure [the PM] is under from hard-liners to take a very tough approach to the negotiations. They see limited pressure on May for a softer Brexit.
and
The outcome of the Brexit talks will be shaped to a large degree by the EU governments. They are mostly united in taking a hard line. Worried about the cohesion and unity of the EU, they do not want populist leaders to be able to point to the British and say, “They are doing fine outside the EU, let us go and join them.” Exiting must be seen to carry a price.
It rather seems to me that the EU officials pessimistic about the outcome ought to have a strong coffee and then a hard think about which side here is the real obstacle to a mutually-advantageous outcome. Hint: It ain't the UK.
Culturally and socially, however, we remain lost, often harking back to days of empire and clinging to other English-speaking countries just as they once clung to us but Australia and New Zealand, though they mean well, have other concerns and are not the countries or societies they were or we perhaps imagine. Auckland is an Asian city and becoming more so.
Do you not understand how to use google? I don't want to go on at you, but you have a silly little avatar designed to suggest that you diligently search after truth, whereas you can't in reality be arsed to conduct the, literally, 30 seconds worth of investigation which would show you that Gove said that staying in the EU would open our borders to 88 million people, being the citizens of Turkey and four other countries. Does that really appear to you to be equivalent to saying that 88 million Turks are coming here? Or is it something you would like to be true, so you'll say it is true, cos that's what logical searchers after truth do with facts?
Cameron also did say, in substance, that Brexit heightens the risk of major intra-European conflict, which it seems to me cashes out as a ww3 warning, as that's how it started the last 2 times. Again, google it, if you know how to. It is apart from anything else bloody bad manners to post palpably untrue statements here.
Was it only Gove and Cameron who were making statements for their respective sides? I was under the impression that most of the Tory top brass was at it - even Mrs may.
Well, you tell me. Again, I expect a judicious use of Google or your other search engine of choice will help you here. I have not been able to find anyone saying something so stratospherically silly as 88 million Turks were coming here, but anything's possible.
What do those footsteps represent?
Perhaps you'd like to defend this one? Apparently Britain's border is with any country that adjoins another country that has a visa waiver programme, not with the UK, but with the Schengen zone.
Turkey *was* / is in the process of joining. That they seem to be unable to fill their obligations to process their membership does not impede this truth.
Turkey is a candidate country to join the EU and is currently in formal accession negotiations.
As it has been since 2002, since when just 1 out of 35 accession chapters has been successfully closed. Being a candidate country and being close to joining are two different things. Turkey was not remotely close to becoming a member and even if it was, Britain still has a veto on it (as do Greece, Cyprus and France, to name but three more).
Do you not understand how to use google? I don't want to go on at you, but you have a silly little avatar designed to suggest that you diligently search after truth, whereas you can't in reality be arsed to conduct the, literally, 30 seconds worth of investigation which would show you that Gove said that staying in the EU would open our borders to 88 million people, being the citizens of Turkey and four other countries. Does that really appear to you to be equivalent to saying that 88 million Turks are coming here? Or is it something you would like to be true, so you'll say it is true, cos that's what logical searchers after truth do with facts?
Cameron also did say, in substance, that Brexit heightens the risk of major intra-European conflict, which it seems to me cashes out as a ww3 warning, as that's how it started the last 2 times. Again, google it, if you know how to. It is apart from anything else bloody bad manners to post palpably untrue statements here.
Was it only Gove and Cameron who were making statements for their respective sides? I was under the impression that most of the Tory top brass was at it - even Mrs may.
Well, you tell me. Again, I expect a judicious use of Google or your other search engine of choice will help you here. I have not been able to find anyone saying something so stratospherically silly as 88 million Turks were coming here, but anything's possible.
What do those footsteps represent?
SNIP
Perhaps you'd like to defend this one? Apparently Britain's border is with any country that adjoins another country that has a visa waiver programme, not with the UK, but with the Schengen zone. SNIP
Turkey *was* / is in the process of joining. That they seem to be unable to fill their obligations to process their membership does not impede this truth.
Turkey is a candidate country to join the EU and is currently in formal accession negotiations.
As it has been since 2002, since when just 1 out of 35 accession chapters has been successfully closed. Being a candidate country and being close to joining are two different things. Turkey was not remotely close to becoming a member and even if it was, Britain still has a veto on it (as do Greece, Cyprus and France, to name but three more).
I thought the Government's position before the referendum was to support their membership?
That Charles Grant paper is also very revealing. Compare and contrast these two bits of the 'Key Findings' (page 7):
EU officials are pessimistic because they observe the pressure she is under from hard-liners to take a very tough approach to the negotiations. They see limited pressure on May for a softer Brexit.
and
The outcome of the Brexit talks will be shaped to a large degree by the EU governments. They are mostly united in taking a hard line. Worried about the cohesion and unity of the EU, they do not want populist leaders to be able to point to the British and say, “They are doing fine outside the EU, let us go and join them.” Exiting must be seen to carry a price.
It rather seems to me that the EU officials pessimistic about the outcome ought to have a strong coffee and then a hard think about which side here is the real obstacle to a mutually-advantageous outcome. Hint: It ain't the UK.
It's hard to argue with the notion that if you want to make countries stay "in the club", making it easy and attractive for them to leave isn't the answer.
OTOH, given many countries benefit financially from EU membership, why would they want to leave ? Germany is now left as the principal paymaster of the EU and there will be pressure on other northern countries and France to take up the financial slack left by Britain's departure and I imagine the £50 billion (or whatever the figure really is) "dowry" for our departure will be the integral part of the negotiations ahead in which we hold the final card (apparently) that if there is no deal, we leave without paying a penny more.
Why should the EU countries make it "easy" for us to Leave ?
they are using UK government ESTIMATES, there are no actual statistics that split the revenues, ie they are just made up and could be miles out especially given the UK will always try to show themselves in a good light at the expense of Scotland.
All Statistics use estimates - even the Vicar of Bath approves of GERS:
Perhaps you'd like to defend this one? Apparently Britain's border is with any country that adjoins another country that has a visa waiver programme, not with the UK, but with the Schengen zone.
Easy peasy. Eight blokes and six women will come from Turkey. Half will settle in Brum and the other lot in Cirencester or Swindon
Why should the EU countries make it "easy" for us to Leave ?
Whether they want to make it easy or not, we are leaving. The decision has been taken. Sane people, therefore (of whom there seems to be a distinct shortage) will move on and try to work on a deal which is in both sides' interests. This is not a zero-sum game. A chaotic crash-out would damage both sides, and it will be of little consolation to the EU27 that it would damage the UK more.
Quite apart from the awful events at Westminster, much the most troubling aspect of the week for me was the nauseating behaviour of so-called English "fans" during the match with Germany in Dortmund.
The worrying thing was our cultural references and identity remain mired in the period 1940-45. Only someone over 90 years old could have fought in that conflict and only someone over 80 could remember it. Now, that's still a lot of people and their experiences and sacrifices cannot and must not be forgotten but nor can it form and frame the identity of a nation more than 70 years later and yet it does.
Many younger people will have grown up among the debris, both physical and psychological.
The idea that someone whose families fought for freedom should give it away to a German dominated Europe is probably as risible as expecting the Irish to rejoin the UK.
As for the commonwealth references. Where lives the British diaspora? Where are our language, culture, customs and way of life most embedded?
There is little doubt that when the British or English talk of foreigners, there are a range of tiers that we go through.
The Irish are not foreign. They are Irish.
The Canadians, Aussies, New Zealanders are not really foreign, especially the Aussies.They are 'like us'.
And so on until you reach the groups polling minus 40 on yougov immigration polling.
The LibDem plan was to use the DPM, the Quad, and the spread of Junior ministers to have an input (and a brake) on the Tories across the whole range of government activity. Actually, if you study the detail (and talk to LD ex-ministers as I have), they were actually very successful in getting the Tories to drop a whole raft of potentially dumb and/or unpopular things at an early stage. The trouble is, of course, that it's the things the government actually does that influences the zeitgeist - there is rarely credit in killing a bad idea at birth. Indeed the LibDems probably did the Tories multiple favours in choking off some of their more rabid ideas before they saw the light of day (an EU referendum being one of them).
The question is whether avoiding the DPM/Quad model and going for, say, Education and/or Environment and opting out of the rest, allows you to reduce the blame you get for everything else the government does. Overseas precedent suggests it doesn't, really, since you have to vote for it anyway and haven't had much input into it.
Had we not gone into Coalition or made some sort of "deal" with Cameron, we'd have been excoriated for not being "serious" about power and getting things done. Had we stood in opposition and voted down Conservative proposals we didn't like (assuming we'd have got the other opposition parties on side and that's a big if), Cameron would eventually have gone to the country and said "I want to govern but the LDs won't let me" and he'd have won his majority any way.
The trouble with Coalition is it's not for the adversarial-minded who form the bulk of political activists. The LDs had to vote through measures they didn't like but so too did the Conservatives - that's the true meaning of coalition - compromise. The pressure to form a Government after the 2010 GE prevented a more detailed understanding of how the new arrangement would work in legislation terms.
2015 was partly the result of those ex-LD voters who couldn't stomach us working with the Conservatives but it was also the very real fear (magnified far beyond reality) of a Labour-SNP Government coming into office combined with Cameron being able to convince that in essence the Coalition could continue even if there were no LD presence. We couldn't promise to continue the Coalition because in 2010 Clegg had said we couldn't.
It is far from clear that Cameron could have called a second election in the way suggested. Had he threatened to do so, the LibDems could have combined with Labour and the various smaller parties to form an alternative Government and the Monarch would have been unlikely to grant a Dissolution until that option had been explored.
That Charles Grant paper is also very revealing. Compare and contrast these two bits of the 'Key Findings' (page 7):
EU officials are pessimistic because they observe the pressure she is under from hard-liners to take a very tough approach to the negotiations. They see limited pressure on May for a softer Brexit.
and
The outcome of the Brexit talks will be shaped to a large degree by the EU governments. They are mostly united in taking a hard line. Worried about the cohesion and unity of the EU, they do not want populist leaders to be able to point to the British and say, “They are doing fine outside the EU, let us go and join them.” Exiting must be seen to carry a price.
It rather seems to me that the EU officials pessimistic about the outcome ought to have a strong coffee and then a hard think about which side here is the real obstacle to a mutually-advantageous outcome. Hint: It ain't the UK.
It's hard to argue with the notion that if you want to make countries stay "in the club", making it easy and attractive for them to leave isn't the answer.
OTOH, given many countries benefit financially from EU membership, why would they want to leave ? Germany is now left as the principal paymaster of the EU and there will be pressure on other northern countries and France to take up the financial slack left by Britain's departure and I imagine the £50 billion (or whatever the figure really is) "dowry" for our departure will be the integral part of the negotiations ahead in which we hold the final card (apparently) that if there is no deal, we leave without paying a penny more.
Why should the EU countries make it "easy" for us to Leave ?
Any normal organisation would be sad at a member leaving, but would not seek to make it difficult other than ensuring all debts and obligations are settled.
They would also seek feedback from the member on why they left, and how they could improve, and offer to welcome them back in the future.
Why should the EU countries make it "easy" for us to Leave ?
Whether they want to make it easy or not, we are leaving. The decision has been taken. Sane people, therefore (of whom there seems to be a distinct shortage) will move on and work on a deal which is in both sides' interests. This is not a zero-sum game. A chaotic crash-out would damage both sides, and it will be of little consolation to the EU27 that it would damage the UK more.
Until 2 years on Wednesday we remain free to take a different decision. A chaotic crash-out will not happen.
Perhaps you'd like to defend this one? Apparently Britain's border is with any country that adjoins another country that has a visa waiver programme, not with the UK, but with the Schengen zone.
Well done! you have knocked 12 million off the claim, and cleverly shifted from "will come here" to "here's a drawing of a single set of footprints," all in one go. See how easy that was?
At a wild guess, I'd say the footprints accurately represent a right of access. They certainly don't suggest to me a claim that there will be an influx of 88m or even 76m immigrants to the UK. As to the second poster, I imagine you think it by definition unacceptable (by reason of racism or whatever) to say that one wants as many borders as reasonably possible between one's own country and lethally dangerous failed states like Syria and Iraq. I don't.
Why should the EU countries make it "easy" for us to Leave ?
Whether they want to make it easy or not, we are leaving. The decision has been taken. Sane people, therefore (of whom there seems to be a distinct shortage) will move on and try to work on a deal which is in both sides' interests. This is not a zero-sum game. A chaotic crash-out would damage both sides, and it will be of little consolation to the EU27 that it would damage the UK more.
Some of your friends don't even think it will damage the UK at all. Apparently, getting a trade deal with Australia is the cherry. I get it, leave the ultimate trade deal with 450m people and getting some sort of a deal with 22m people, does not make a lot of sense except to a bigot.
Leaving the EU will, they say, increase our exports. Germany seems to have no problem exporting from within the EU and with a currency which since it was created [ 1999 ] has appreciated hugely against sterling.
Oh god, the special episode of QT is 90 minutes long this evening. With that amount of wind being produced they could keep enough wind turbines going to power a whole town.
Why should the EU countries make it "easy" for us to Leave ?
Whether they want to make it easy or not, we are leaving. The decision has been taken. Sane people, therefore (of whom there seems to be a distinct shortage) will move on and try to work on a deal which is in both sides' interests. This is not a zero-sum game. A chaotic crash-out would damage both sides, and it will be of little consolation to the EU27 that it would damage the UK more.
Some of your friends don't even think it will damage the UK at all. Apparently, getting a trade deal with Australia is the cherry. I get it, leave the ultimate trade deal with 450m people and getting some sort of a deal with 22m people, does not make a lot of sense except to a bigot.
Both sides recognise a FTA with Europe would be good for both sides so it is hard to see one not happening. On timing, while it took five years for the Canadian deal, we are already perfectly aligned with the EU's regulatory framework.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
The Turks on their way was not a lie. Their membership was most certainly in the short term and they were about to get full access to schenghan area, without the need for visas. It's only *since* the referendum that Turkey's membership fell completely off the horizon.
No, that's rubbish. At the time of the EURef vote, the Turks had concluded 1 chapter out of 35 in their accession negotiations, more than 13 years after the EU decided to open negotiations. The idea that the Turks were at all close to membership is laughable.
Indeed - the way that issue was played was very misleading, to put it mildly. Plenty of individual Leavers took issue with it, but it was widely promoted and probably swayed some votes. Which campaign was worse I'll leave to scholars, but my side was well as the other got up to dodgy stuff.
Oh god, the special episode of QT is 90 minutes long this evening. With that amount of wind being produced they could keep enough wind turbines going to power a whole town.
Do we get a specially extended This Week to make up for it??
Some of your friends don't even think it will damage the UK at all. Apparently, getting a trade deal with Australia is the cherry. I get it, leave the ultimate trade deal with 450m people and getting some sort of a deal with 22m people, does not make a lot of sense except to a bigot.
Some of your friends don't even think it will damage the UK at all. Apparently, getting a trade deal with Australia is the cherry. I get it, leave the ultimate trade deal with 450m people and getting some sort of a deal with 22m people, does not make a lot of sense except to a bigot.
Cameron tried to say it on 8th May when he put out advance copies of his speech for the following day and was greeted by such ridicule in the press that he dropped it from the speech.
Both sides lied in the referendum campaign - the biggest lie of all being Cameron's non- renegotiation and the claim that there would be no further integration if we voted to Remain. Of course you ignore those lies because it doesn't suit your narrative.
And the idea that an immediate recession and the emergency budget were only prevented by a bit of tinkering by the BOE is ludicrous. Just like most other Remaniac claims.
You're not still sticking to that old tale? There was no 'ghost speech' which was withdrawn. It was just Boris making it up.
Nope the Telegraph, The Mirror, Sky News and many other sources all quoted it. The Guardian ran an article entitled "Is David Cameron right that leaving EU could increase the risk of war?"
So do stop lying Stark. You already look foolish for your blind Europhilia. Don't add revisionism to your tally of idiocies.
It was actually extremely clever by Leave, Boris in particular. Peace and stability in Europe can certainly in part be attributed to EU co-operation, and Dave was entitled to point this out. However, for Boris then to assert that the claim was that Brexit would cause the Third World War reduced it to an absurdity, leaving one of Remain's most powerful arguments in tatters. That much of the press went along with it just shows what a great media operation Leave had and that Boris can play them like a fiddle.
The claim was made before Boris made his speech. He was responding to the reports not causing them. More lies from you Mr Stark.
Why should the EU countries make it "easy" for us to Leave ?
Whether they want to make it easy or not, we are leaving. The decision has been taken. Sane people, therefore (of whom there seems to be a distinct shortage) will move on and work on a deal which is in both sides' interests. This is not a zero-sum game. A chaotic crash-out would damage both sides, and it will be of little consolation to the EU27 that it would damage the UK more.
Until 2 years on Wednesday we remain free to take a different decision. A chaotic crash-out will not happen.
Assuming they wish A50 to be revocable, which is questionable, and assuming things are bad enough there is incontrovertible public will that makes the government willing to change tack, which is unlikely as bad effects take a long time to sink through. All things are possible, but even so.
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
The Turks on their way was not a lie. Their membership was most certainly in the short term and they were about to get full access to schenghan area, without the need for visas. It's only *since* the referendum that Turkey's membership fell completely off the horizon.
Turkey has been negotiating for entry since 2005 (it originally applied to join the EEC in the late 80s). In that time, only one of the thirty six chapters required for entry has been closed. The Turkish people are less keen on the EU than they were. The EU doesn't want an Erdogan-flavoured Turkey. It's just not going to happen, though it suits both sides to continue the fiction.
Fortunately, since I'd decided that it was, on balance, best for us to Leave back in 2015, I didn't need to take any real notice of any of the Leave campaigns. However, the Turkish gambit was a disgrace.
Many younger people will have grown up among the debris, both physical and psychological.
The idea that someone whose families fought for freedom should give it away to a German dominated Europe is probably as risible as expecting the Irish to rejoin the UK.
As for the commonwealth references. Where lives the British diaspora? Where are our language, culture, customs and way of life most embedded?
There is little doubt that when the British or English talk of foreigners, there are a range of tiers that we go through.
The Irish are not foreign. They are Irish.
The Canadians, Aussies, New Zealanders are not really foreign, especially the Aussies.They are 'like us'.
And so on until you reach the groups polling minus 40 on yougov immigration polling.
A number of points, most of which with which I disagree.
WW1 was a more traumatic social experience in terms of numbers of fatalities (albeit far more on the battlefield as a proportion than WW2) and left a legacy of a generation utterly opposed to war (and who could blame them having endured what they had?). We won that war too albeit we never endured a phase of being "alone" and most of the real damage and destruction was visited on NE France and Belgium (not to underestimate the Zeppelin raids on London and the shelling of coastal towns).
If we are leaving the EU, how can we stop a "German dominated Europe" as you put it ? Indeed, one of the reasons for us being in the EU was to act as a counterpoint to the Paris-Berlin axis (which we rarely did, could or would).
I'd point out as far as NZ is concerned, it's not just British people who are settling there - the British were the leading group up to 2013 but have been overtaken in terms of numbers by India, China and the Philippines.
What that doesn't tell you is that most of the British migrants settle on the South Island and in Hawkes Bay while the Asian migrants head for Auckland.
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this: will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
We haven't left yet. That's the mantra isn't it? We'll be contributing to the EU budget until we leave. Wilful misunderstanding abounds, apparently.
That Charles Grant paper is also very revealing. Compare and contrast these two bits of the 'Key Findings' (page 7):
EU officials are pessimistic because they observe the pressure she is under from hard-liners to take a very tough approach to the negotiations. They see limited pressure on May for a softer Brexit.
and
The outcome of the Brexit talks will be shaped to a large degree by the EU governments. They are mostly united in taking a hard line. Worried about the cohesion and unity of the EU, they do not want populist leaders to be able to point to the British and say, “They are doing fine outside the EU, let us go and join them.” Exiting must be seen to carry a price.
It rather seems to me that the EU officials pessimistic about the outcome ought to have a strong coffee and then a hard think about which side here is the real obstacle to a mutually-advantageous outcome. Hint: It ain't the UK.
It's hard to argue with the notion that if you want to make countries stay "in the club", making it easy and attractive for them to leave isn't the answer.
OTOH, given many countries benefit financially from EU membership, why would they want to leave ? Germany is now left as the principal paymaster of the EU and there will be pressure on other northern countries and France to take up the financial slack left by Britain's departure and I imagine the £50 billion (or whatever the figure really is) "dowry" for our departure will be the integral part of the negotiations ahead in which we hold the final card (apparently) that if there is no deal, we leave without paying a penny more.
Why should the EU countries make it "easy" for us to Leave ?
Any normal organisation would be sad at a member leaving, but would not seek to make it difficult other than ensuring all debts and obligations are settled.
They would also seek feedback from the member on why they left, and how they could improve, and offer to welcome them back in the future.
There might be many a divorce solicitor who would say otherwise. Causing maximum damage even at your own significant expense is not even rare.
I don't want to go on at you, but you have a silly little avatar designed to suggest that you diligently search after truth, whereas you can't in reality be arsed to conduct the, literally, 30 seconds worth of investigation which would show you that Gove said that staying in the EU would open our borders to 88 million people, being the citizens of Turkey and four other countries. Does that really appear to you to be equivalent to saying that 88 million Turks are coming here? Or is it something you would like to be true, so you'll say it is true, cos that's what logical searchers after truth do with facts?
Cameron also did say, in substance, that Brexit heightens the risk of major intra-European conflict, which it seems to me cashes out as a ww3 warning, as that's how it started the last 2 times. Again, google it, if you know how to. It is apart from anything else bloody bad manners to post palpably untrue statements here.
Was it only Gove and Cameron who were making statements for their respective sides? I was under the impression that most of the Tory top brass was at it - even Mrs may.
Well, you tell me. Again, I expect a judicious use of Google or your other search engine of choice will help you here. I have not been able to find anyone saying something so stratospherically silly as 88 million Turks were coming here, but anything's possible.
What do those footsteps represent?
SNIP
Perhaps you'd like to defend this one? Apparently Britain's border is with any country that adjoins another country that has a visa waiver programme, not with the UK, but with the Schengen zone. SNIP
Turkey *was* / is in the process of joining. That they seem to be unable to fill their obligations to process their membership does not impede this truth.
Turkey is a candidate country to join the EU and is currently in formal accession negotiations.
As it has been since 2002, since when just 1 out of 35 accession chapters has been successfully closed. Being a candidate country and being close to joining are two different things. Turkey was not remotely close to becoming a member and even if it was, Britain still has a veto on it (as do Greece, Cyprus and France, to name but three more).
I thought the Government's position before the referendum was to support their membership?
It was. I can only assume that it was a traditional Euro-game whereby Britain was aiming for improved relations with Turkey - something Cameron had been looking to achieve since before the Syrian war - safe in the knowledge that nothing would come of it.
The big problem with May having the power to block Indyref2 - is that Holyrood's inability to call it themselves, just highlights how powerless Holyrood is. This is against the direction of travel as per the recent Scottish Attitudes Survey - see table below:
Hmmm, I wouldn't call Holyrood powerless, it is just that the SNP don't seem to want to use any of the powers.
LOL, first one comes along , we cannot even organise a referendum but Rob thinks we have powers, get those road signs changed , that will change things big time.
Don't you think Nicola should be setting out some post Brexit devolutionary expectations for Scotland, Malc ? Likewise the Welsh and NI assemblies.
Top of my head:
1 Guarantee EU budget funding until the end of the cycle, March 2020. 2 Per capita share of the £350m a week as a direct allocation to Scottish administration to be spent on Scotland's priorities from 2020 (possibly 2019) 3 Per capita share of any WTO tariff income received by UK if that is Brexit result 4 Fisheries management and redevelopment
St Theresa has already said Westminster and Westminster only will decide what if any repatriated powers get devolved unfortunately. last suggestion well thought out and detailed on Brexit was flung in the bin.
I'm now told that the aforesaid Daisley was indeed a Tory press officer - for Annabelle Goldie!
He must feel a bit awkward when his southron hack colleagues start making jokes about West of Scotland diet, health and life expectancy.
twitter.com/shuggie116/status/838873420066586626
Was it really necessary to post that?
Why would they, unless they were rattled?
The SNP succeeded in silencing Daisley at STV - it must rankle that someone has the guts to stand up to their bullying...
LOL, you keep trying , you mean they asked him to do his job for STV and cutout the personal bile and he flounced off in a huff thinking he was bigger and better than STV.
Hmmm, I wouldn't call Holyrood powerless, it is just that the SNP don't seem to want to use any of the powers.
Rob, unfortunately I have to go but would love to know even one relevant power that could be used to change Scotland for the better, that the SNP have not used. Nothing that can actually make any difference has been devolved as they do not want the SNP to be able to improve things.
PS: Not having a go at you Rob but nothing of any importance whatsoever is devolved, all teh key levers of power are maintained at Westminster.
No worries - enjoy tending to your Turnips!
Sun beating down Rob, will be a bumper crop this year
Comments
When we voted LEAVE on 23/6/16, it was my fervent hope it would start a proper debate about our place in the world and the kind of people we are and want to be as well as the society in which we would want to live. Probably because of fatigue from the EU Referendum that debate hasn't started - most people have withdrawn and just want the whole thing to be over with as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, life and international relations don't work that way.
Quite apart from the awful events at Westminster, much the most troubling aspect of the week for me was the nauseating behaviour of so-called English "fans" during the match with Germany in Dortmund.
The worrying thing was our cultural references and identity remain mired in the period 1940-45. Only someone over 90 years old could have fought in that conflict and only someone over 80 could remember it. Now, that's still a lot of people and their experiences and sacrifices cannot and must not be forgotten but nor can it form and frame the identity of a nation more than 70 years later and yet it does.
Dean Acheson's comment in 1962 is as valid now as it was then. We tried perhaps to find a new role as part of the emerging western European concensus and militarily we were part of the NATO Alliance which until the collapse of Communism in 1989 kept us at peace and allowed us to enjoy more than 40 years of unparalleled prosperity.
Culturally and socially, however, we remain lost, often harking back to days of empire and clinging to other English-speaking countries just as they once clung to us but Australia and New Zealand, though they mean well, have other concerns and are not the countries or societies they were or we perhaps imagine. Auckland is an Asian city and becoming more so.
Turkey is a candidate country to join the EU and is currently in formal accession negotiations.
EU officials are pessimistic because they observe the pressure [the PM] is under from hard-liners to take a very tough approach to the negotiations. They see limited pressure on May for a softer Brexit.
and
The outcome of the Brexit talks will be shaped to a large degree by the EU governments. They are mostly united in taking a hard line. Worried about the cohesion and unity of the EU, they do not want populist leaders to be able to point to the British and say, “They are doing fine outside the EU, let us go and join them.” Exiting must be seen to carry a price.
It rather seems to me that the EU officials pessimistic about the outcome ought to have a strong coffee and then a hard think about which side here is the real obstacle to a mutually-advantageous outcome. Hint: It ain't the UK.
OTOH, given many countries benefit financially from EU membership, why would they want to leave ? Germany is now left as the principal paymaster of the EU and there will be pressure on other northern countries and France to take up the financial slack left by Britain's departure and I imagine the £50 billion (or whatever the figure really is) "dowry" for our departure will be the integral part of the negotiations ahead in which we hold the final card (apparently) that if there is no deal, we leave without paying a penny more.
Why should the EU countries make it "easy" for us to Leave ?
I cannot see why you are so upset
The idea that someone whose families fought for freedom should give it away to a German dominated Europe is probably as risible as expecting the Irish to rejoin the UK.
As for the commonwealth references. Where lives the British diaspora? Where are our language, culture, customs and way of life most embedded?
There is little doubt that when the British or English talk of foreigners, there are a range of tiers that we go through.
The Irish are not foreign. They are Irish.
The Canadians, Aussies, New Zealanders are not really foreign, especially the Aussies.They are 'like us'.
And so on until you reach the groups polling minus 40 on yougov immigration polling.
They would also seek feedback from the member on why they left, and how they could improve, and offer to welcome them back in the future.
At a wild guess, I'd say the footprints accurately represent a right of access. They certainly don't suggest to me a claim that there will be an influx of 88m or even 76m immigrants to the UK. As to the second poster, I imagine you think it by definition unacceptable (by reason of racism or whatever) to say that one wants as many borders as reasonably possible between one's own country and lethally dangerous failed states like Syria and Iraq. I don't.
Leaving the EU will, they say, increase our exports. Germany seems to have no problem exporting from within the EU and with a currency which since it was created [ 1999 ] has appreciated hugely against sterling.
Fortunately, since I'd decided that it was, on balance, best for us to Leave back in 2015, I didn't need to take any real notice of any of the Leave campaigns. However, the Turkish gambit was a disgrace.
WW1 was a more traumatic social experience in terms of numbers of fatalities (albeit far more on the battlefield as a proportion than WW2) and left a legacy of a generation utterly opposed to war (and who could blame them having endured what they had?). We won that war too albeit we never endured a phase of being "alone" and most of the real damage and destruction was visited on NE France and Belgium (not to underestimate the Zeppelin raids on London and the shelling of coastal towns).
If we are leaving the EU, how can we stop a "German dominated Europe" as you put it ? Indeed, one of the reasons for us being in the EU was to act as a counterpoint to the Paris-Berlin axis (which we rarely did, could or would).
I'd point out as far as NZ is concerned, it's not just British people who are settling there - the British were the leading group up to 2013 but have been overtaken in terms of numbers by India, China and the Philippines.
https://www.enz.org/migrants.html
What that doesn't tell you is that most of the British migrants settle on the South Island and in Hawkes Bay while the Asian migrants head for Auckland.