Full border control Full maritime rights Full completion by 2019 No divorce payment No European jurisdiction or impediment WTO seat and free to trade wherever
And what, if we don't get all six - we don't leave?
If we don't get all six Labour will abstain on the final Commons vote.
Because....UKIP don't have any MPs left?
Is this a new form of pairing that has passed me by?!
There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.
That's an interesting angle. The energy and anti-sanctions wishes of the Russians are well known; the climate change denial one is less mentioned (although makes sense given Russia's only being kept anywhere near afloat by energy exports).
Musk must be a target for Russia now in so many ways ...
Also: to think what Russia might have been with decent leadership.
There is scarcely a point in Russian history, except maybe the mid 18th century, when that last remark wouldn't have been pertinent!
Edit: my chronology is out there - should have said the late 18th century.
Also the early 18th century, under Peter I, and - to a lesser extent, because they had nothing like the power that Catherine and Peter did - the Witte/Stolypin regimes of the late 19th / early 20th century.
Well perhaps. Although even with the most successful leadership the lot of an 18th or 19th century Russian peasant was not a happy one. The lot of any European peasant was not a happy one, but the Russian peasant probably had it worse.
(There is a very readable book on Russian history by Martin Sixsmith. ("Russia: A 1000-year Chronicle of the Wild East') A better title might have been "Russia: A 1000-year Chronicle of Unrelenting Bloody Misery'.)
There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.
That's an interesting angle. The energy and anti-sanctions wishes of the Russians are well known; the climate change denial one is less mentioned (although makes sense given Russia's only being kept anywhere near afloat by energy exports).
Musk must be a target for Russia now in so many ways ...
Also: to think what Russia might have been with decent leadership.
Pro Russian, populist, anti-EU climate change deniers. We can all name a few of them in various countries.
Full border control Full maritime rights Full completion by 2019 No divorce payment No European jurisdiction or impediment WTO seat and free to trade wherever
No free PhDs for all?
Surely Tranmere Rovers squad place is a minimum requirement.
Mr. Song, it's very naughty of some people to have opinions that aren't approved of by the liberal metropolitan types. Bad voters! Naughty voters! Don't make me wag my finger a second time!
LOL. Goes from 'the typical brainstorm' to the generic 'brainstorming doesn't work'. And yet then describes a gentle form of brainstorming as being the best way.
Spoke and hub is what worked at Bell labs - public spaces designed to force frequent unplanned interactions between people from different disciplines, and then quiet spaces where people could retreat to work individually or in very small groups to do 'Deep Work'.
A friend at the GW Bioinformatics Center designed the new building for his whole department on that basis. Seems to be working. Also, he's made the common areas nicer than his research students' apartments, so they don't go home even when relaxing watching the game on the 50" screen in the lounge area. Free sodas and coffee for everyone. Lots of social interactions.
Mr. Song, it's very naughty of some people to have opinions that aren't approved of by the liberal metropolitan types. Bad voters! Naughty voters! Don't make me wag my finger a second time!
Try reading it again, I wasn't referring to voters.
There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.
That's an interesting angle. The energy and anti-sanctions wishes of the Russians are well known; the climate change denial one is less mentioned (although makes sense given Russia's only being kept anywhere near afloat by energy exports).
Musk must be a target for Russia now in so many ways ...
Also: to think what Russia might have been with decent leadership.
There is scarcely a point in Russian history, except maybe the mid 18th century, when that last remark wouldn't have been pertinent!
Edit: my chronology is out there - should have said the late 18th century.
Also the early 18th century, under Peter I, and - to a lesser extent, because they had nothing like the power that Catherine and Peter did - the Witte/Stolypin regimes of the late 19th / early 20th century.
Well perhaps. Although even with the most successful leadership the lot of an 18th or 19th century Russian peasant was not a happy one. The lot of any European peasant was not a happy one, but the Russian peasant probably had it worse.
(There is a very readable book on Russian history by Martin Sixsmith. ("Russia: A 1000-year Chronicle of the Wild East') A better title might have been "Russia: A 1000-year Chronicle of Unrelenting Bloody Misery'.)
That's true, although you have to take it in the context of the time and the historic / cultural / geographic legacy. And as you say, that inheritance is not one that is particularly conducive to a liberal western-style society.
Just watched recording of last nights Question Time from Birmingham and am interested in the enthusiastic near estatic reception given to Alex Salmond's plea for the rights of other European citizens.
Given that this was a 50-50 BREXIT city in England is this a sign of a small turning of the tide towards the issues of Immigration and Europe?
There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.
That's an interesting angle. The energy and anti-sanctions wishes of the Russians are well known; the climate change denial one is less mentioned (although makes sense given Russia's only being kept anywhere near afloat by energy exports).
Musk must be a target for Russia now in so many ways ...
Also: to think what Russia might have been with decent leadership.
Pro Russian, populist, anti-EU climate change deniers. We can all name a few of them in various countries.
Well I can't, so "We can all" is wrong. I reckon "a few" and "various" each implies a minimum of 3, so just rattle off a list of nine would you, to prove that what you say is true in your own case?
I do hope you don't regard my request as illogical.
The European parliament will veto any Brexit deal that prevents EU citizens who move to the UK during the next two years from having the same rights to live and work in Britain as those already in the country.
The European parliament will veto any Brexit deal that prevents EU citizens who move to the UK during the next two years from having the same rights to live and work in Britain as those already in the country.
There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.
That's an interesting angle. The energy and anti-sanctions wishes of the Russians are well known; the climate change denial one is less mentioned (although makes sense given Russia's only being kept anywhere near afloat by energy exports).
Musk must be a target for Russia now in so many ways ...
Also: to think what Russia might have been with decent leadership.
Pro Russian, populist, anti-EU climate change deniers. We can all name a few of them in various countries.
Well I can't, so "We can all" is wrong. I reckon "a few" and "various" each implies a minimum of 3, so just rattle off a list of nine would you, to prove that what you say is true in your own case?
I do hope you don't regard my request as illogical.
Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, don't know enough about Wilders.
As Theresa May triggers A50 tomorrow I am hopeful that the way forward will be positive and would hope that the following happens
1) TM’s letter is conciliatory and friendly emphasising all that is good in Europe and that while we seek to take back control it will be negotiated on the basis of mutual trust and that the benefits of a tariff free trade deal between Countries is of vital interest to all.
2) The UK to affirm it will discharge without dispute those charges which it is required to honour as would be expected of any Country wanting to protect its worldwide reputation for respecting International Law
3) The UK will make the rights of EU residents here and ex pats abroad the first priority and guarantee security to all including any benefit entitlements until we leave in 2019 when a new International work visa system will apply with no entitlement to any benefits or allowances until the worker has resided in the UK and contributed to the system for five years.
4) The new work visa system to reflect the needs of the UK and devolution to the regions of the Country permitted to address various region’s needs (Scotland in particular is in need of immigration)
5) Close co-operation on all matters military and security with particular attention to the Baltics and Balkans
6) An agreement on shared Europe and UK wide reciprocal health care and non-visa travel within.
7) A transitional period to allow for the best arrangements and certainty for business UK and Europe wide.
8) A department of government to interact and input in a mutual way to EU organisations and even the EU on occasions, particularly on defence and immigration/migration
There will be some on the right and UKIP who will not agree with some or all of this but I do believe that Theresa May needs, and will, seek to obtain an agreement that satisfies the 70% or so of sensible remainers and leavers.
It is time to put on one side the terms remainer and leaver and work together for the greater good. I have disliked intensely the lack of security those immigrants living here and absolutely condemn the threats and unacceptable language used by some in creating a hostile atmosphere. It is time we said to everyone living here and contributing to our society you are welcome and thank them for making our country the great country it is
The European parliament will veto any Brexit deal that prevents EU citizens who move to the UK during the next two years from having the same rights to live and work in Britain as those already in the country.
And they wonder why we want out?
Do they?
The Brexit quote of the day goes to Nigel Farage:
"If Brexit is a disaster I will go and live abroad. I will go and live somewhere else."
This getting a bit ridiculous now.... Green party submits complaint about Daily Mail to Ipso
Amelia Womack, the Green party’s deputy leader, has submitted a complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the Daily Mail’s coverage of Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon today. Her letter says:
I wish to make a complaint under the editors’ code of practice relating to the Daily Mail’s coverage on March 28 of a meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May.
The coverage breaches clause 12 as the women are being discriminated against due to their gender.
To bring the politicians’ appearance into this story is not only entirely irrelevant but incredibly disrespectful.
This headline and the further derogatory comments inside the paper would not have even been considered, let alone published, if the two politicians in question had been men
Miss Lass, I'd be very wary of treating any QT audience as representative of either the country or the local population. Not saying that necessarily means you're wrong about the specific point/policy, just that a QT audience isn't a helpful indicator.
The European parliament will veto any Brexit deal that prevents EU citizens who move to the UK during the next two years from having the same rights to live and work in Britain as those already in the country.
And they wonder why we want out?
It is called a Treaty Obligation. Until we are out - in two years time - Freedom of Movement applies
This headline and the further derogatory comments inside the paper would not have even been considered, let alone published, if the two politicians in question had been men
We all laughed at burned fatty Cameron pictures, Boris looking a tw@t out running, Jezza in the shell suit, etc etc etc.
The Guardian cartoonist portrayed Cameron as having a condom for a head...day after day after day after day...it wasn't funny the first time, let alone the 1000th.
The European parliament will veto any Brexit deal that prevents EU citizens who move to the UK during the next two years from having the same rights to live and work in Britain as those already in the country.
And they wonder why we want out?
It is called a Treaty Obligation. Until we are out - in two years time - Freedom of Movement applies
It's a nonsense, though! They will veto any deal (in two years' time), that prevents EU citizens who move to the UK in during the next two years from having the same rights. They think we're going to retrospectively ban people from working in the UK? And what we do after those 2 years is none of their business.
How would that even be news? We know she didn't want Brexit as she told us that, and as far as I know she has not explained that she was wrong to hold that position before, so her position is presumably that she didn't want this but that in order to carry out the democratic will of the referendum she must do this and so will seek the best arrangements and deal she can.
I think Osborne will be content with those numbers. A huge net 'wrong', but only an MoE change over 2015.
Does Osbo care? Is he really that bothered about remaining an MP? If so, he has an odd way of going about winning a selection contest.
(That said, as someone who might well be running at least one selection contest, I can see that his capacity to fundraise would be a net positive).
He clearly has no interest in being an MP. Part time Directorships and adviser roles, even an occasional newspaper column, these are probably easy enough to do and still focus on the role of MP sufficiently, but he's clearly checked out from the job.
As Theresa May triggers A50 tomorrow I am hopeful that the way forward will be positive and would hope that the following happens
1) TM’s letter is conciliatory and friendly emphasising all that is good in Europe and that while we seek to take back control it will be negotiated on the basis of mutual trust and that the benefits of a tariff free trade deal between Countries is of vital interest to all.
2) The UK to affirm it will discharge without dispute those charges which it is required to honour as would be expected of any Country wanting to protect its worldwide reputation for respecting International Law
3) The UK will make the rights of EU residents here and ex pats abroad the first priority and guarantee security to all including any benefit entitlements until we leave in 2019 when a new International work visa system will apply with no entitlement to any benefits or allowances until the worker has resided in the UK and contributed to the system for five years.
4) The new work visa system to reflect the needs of the UK and devolution to the regions of the Country permitted to address various region’s needs (Scotland in particular is in need of immigration)
5) Close co-operation on all matters military and security with particular attention to the Baltics and Balkans
6) An agreement on shared Europe and UK wide reciprocal health care and non-visa travel within.
7) A transitional period to allow for the best arrangements and certainty for business UK and Europe wide.
8) A department of government to interact and input in a mutual way to EU organisations and even the EU on occasions, particularly on defence and immigration/migration
There will be some on the right and UKIP who will not agree with some or all of this but I do believe that Theresa May needs, and will, seek to obtain an agreement that satisfies the 70% or so of sensible remainers and leavers.
It is time to put on one side the terms remainer and leaver and work together for the greater good. I have disliked intensely the lack of security those immigrants living here and absolutely condemn the threats and unacceptable language used by some in creating a hostile atmosphere. It is time we said to everyone living here and contributing to our society you are welcome and thank them for making our country the great country it is
This getting a bit ridiculous now.... Green party submits complaint about Daily Mail to Ipso .....
I am not overly keen on the complaint, but the Daily Mail needs the odd kicking into line to stop it from going completely bonkers. The only thing that stops the Mail from inhabiting the lower depths of the gutter is that the Daily Star and The Express got there first - little better than 10th rate comics...
The best newspaper at the moment seems to be the New York Times.
This getting a bit ridiculous now.... Green party submits complaint about Daily Mail to Ipso .....
I am not overly keen on the complaint, but the Daily Mail needs the odd kicking into line to stop it from going completely bonkers. The only thing that stops the Mail from inhabiting the lower depths of the gutter is that the Daily Star and The Express got there first - little better than 10th rate comics...
The best newspaper at the moment seems to be the New York Times.
To give it its proper full title, the Failing Fake News Pile of Garbage that is the so called New York Times*....
Just watched recording of last nights Question Time from Birmingham and am interested in the enthusiastic near estatic reception given to Alex Salmond's plea for the rights of other European citizens.
Given that this was a 50-50 BREXIT city in England is this a sign of a small turning of the tide towards the issues of Immigration and Europe?
Given someone like Liam Halligan, economist, financial journalist and a leading brexiteer, has said "Would have been classy & shrewd move for HMG to confirm rights of 3m UK-based EU citizens when triggering Art 50" then it is a view held by people on both sides. However as a general comment those that make the most noise as the nationalists did at similar events in the Scotref don't always reflect majority opinion at large.
As Theresa May triggers A50 tomorrow I am hopeful that the way forward will be positive and would hope that the following happens
1) TM’s letter is conciliatory and friendly emphasising all that is good in Europe and that while we seek to take back control it will be negotiated on the basis of mutual trust and that the benefits of a tariff free trade deal between Countries is of vital interest to all.
2) The UK to affirm it will discharge without dispute those charges which it is required to honour as would be expected of any Country wanting to protect its worldwide reputation for respecting International Law
3) The UK will make the rights of EU residents here and ex pats abroad the first priority and guarantee security to all including any benefit entitlements until we leave in 2019 when a new International work visa system will apply with no entitlement to any benefits or allowances until the worker has resided in the UK and contributed to the system for five years. ...
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
It would indeed be reasonable, but again, I don't really see any sign that May will make the concessions (on immigration and Budget contributions) that Mr NorthWales talks about,
Make no mistake if there's ANY suggestion of us paying an "exit bill", or of still having relatively high levels of immigration, the Mail and the Sun will go into full Outrage mode. From her year in office, has there been any sign that May would be willing to risk that, given she couldn't even stand firm with a small tax rise when those papers started complaining?
As Theresa May triggers A50 tomorrow I am hopeful that the way forward will be positive and would hope that the following happens
1) TM’s letter is conciliatory and friendly emphasising all that is good in Europe and that while we seek to take back control it will be negotiated on the basis of mutual trust and that the benefits of a tariff free trade deal between Countries is of vital interest to all.
2) The UK to affirm it will discharge without dispute those charges which it is required to honour as would be expected of any Country wanting to protect its worldwide reputation for respecting International Law
3) The UK will make the rights of EU residents here and ex pats abroad the first prcluding any benefit entitlements until we leave in 2019 when a new International work visa system will apply with no entitlement to any benefits or allowances until the worker has resided in the UK and contributed to the system for five years.
4) The new work visa system to reflect the needs of the UK and devolution to the regions of the Country permitted to address various region’s needs (Scotland in particular is in need of immigration)
5) Close co-operation on all matters military and security with particular attention to the Baltics and Balkans
6) An agreement on shared Europe and UK wide reciprocal health care and non-visa travel within.
7) A transitional period to allow for the best arrangements and certainty for business UK and Europe wide.
8) A department of government to interact and input in a mutual way to EU organisations and even the EU on occasions, particularly on defence and immigration/migration
There will be some on the right and UKIP who will not agree with some or all of this but I do believe that Theresa May needs, and will, seek to obtain an agreement that satisfies the 70% or so of sensible remainers and leavers.
It is time to put on one side the terms remainer and leaver and work together for the greater good. I have disliked intensely the lack of security those immigrants living here and absolutely condemn the threats and unacceptable language used by some in creating a hostile atmosphere. It is time we said to everyone living here and contributing to our society you are welcome and thank them for making our country the great country it is
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Probably why it won't work. Too many extreme leavers are petrified we won't leave still, and will paint anything less than a physical barrier between us and the continent as not really leaving (seriously, if it takes a bit longer to do it right, with transitional arrangements, who cares - its the destination that's important, not the journey), and too many remainers are are still preferring to wallow in self pity at the result to meet May halfway, not that she has yet bothered to try.
The European parliament will veto any Brexit deal that prevents EU citizens who move to the UK during the next two years from having the same rights to live and work in Britain as those already in the country.
And they wonder why we want out?
It is called a Treaty Obligation. Until we are out - in two years time - Freedom of Movement applies
It's a nonsense, though! They will veto any deal (in two years' time), that prevents EU citizens who move to the UK in during the next two years from having the same rights. They think we're going to retrospectively ban people from working in the UK? And what we do after those 2 years is none of their business.
They are saying that June 2016 or tomorrow cannot be the cutoff date for immigrants. The cutoff date will be when our Treaty obligations lapse - on Brexit day - in 2019(ish) or later if we go for an interim deal.
This getting a bit ridiculous now.... Green party submits complaint about Daily Mail to Ipso .....
I am not overly keen on the complaint, but the Daily Mail needs the odd kicking into line to stop it from going completely bonkers. The only thing that stops the Mail from inhabiting the lower depths of the gutter is that the Daily Star and The Express got there first - little better than 10th rate comics...
The best newspaper at the moment seems to be the New York Times.
If you like your newspaper to combine (really, really) pompous and dull yet surprisingly fact-lite, the NYT is ideal.
I admit to being gobsmacked when QT came from my old town of Boston a year or so ago. Loads of people standing up for Remain and getting big cheers. I commented here afterwards that I must be talking to a different population.
They voted 76% Leave, so I assume the BBC broadcast had chosen a group from Boston. Massachusetts for the evening.
One reporter said the cause of the lockdown was a man who approached the White House and said he had a bomb. The man was taken into custody and Secret Service learned he had a warrant out for his arrest.
This getting a bit ridiculous now.... Green party submits complaint about Daily Mail to Ipso
Amelia Womack, the Green party’s deputy leader, has submitted a complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the Daily Mail’s coverage of Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon today. Her letter says:
I wish to make a complaint under the editors’ code of practice relating to the Daily Mail’s coverage on March 28 of a meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May.
The coverage breaches clause 12 as the women are being discriminated against due to their gender.
To bring the politicians’ appearance into this story is not only entirely irrelevant but incredibly disrespectful.
This headline and the further derogatory comments inside the paper would not have even been considered, let alone published, if the two politicians in question had been men
I think the inclusion of it was stupid, the particular focus was female specific although commenting on appearence generally is not specific to only one gender, but it seems to have had the desired effect - lots of people talking about it, without it likely being a breach of any code.
Another scathing assessment of Keir Starmer, this time by YouGov and evidence-based. Oh, wait.....
"But when looking at these new tests, 45% of British adults think they are reasonable, compared to 31% of voters thinking they are unreasonable. This allows Labour to be seen to be reasonably supporting the government as Article 50 is triggered whilst also hedging its bets so they can later vote against Brexit if public support turns during the re-negotiation period. So, although public don’t yet see these conditions as essential and don’t want Labour to oppose Brexit if the government fails to meet them, there are many reasons why this could end up being a shrewd move by Sir Keir Starmer – especially if public opinion does shift over the next couple of years."
Of course. People may have an issue with islamic migration of people, but to paraphrase Principal Skinner, leave the money out of this, it's not the money's fault if there are other issues.
Typical Guardian, an unusual cricketer appears on the scene and instead of singing his praises for bowling something unusual, they complain about cricketing terminology:
Another example of The Guardian covering the most important issues of the day...who could forget the Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist and a sexist..as of course we can all be trans-racial nowadays.
In his defence, Thomas claimed he was trains-racial....
Shouldn't that be trainsgender?
Sunil didn't take his Railways Anonymous sessions at all seriously. "I would be sitting in a circle with our counsellor and other recovering trainspotters, and put my hand up in order to be excused. And then I would sneak off to the loo to read Railway Magazine! Then I would come back to the group, put my hand and go "I got 30 seconds clean!". I was taking the piss, but I was doing it to myself."
The Conservative were less than a thousand votes behind Labour in both 1955 and 1959 were faded steadily throughout the 1960s - as they did in similar urban constituencies throughout Britain.
Another scathing assessment of Keir Starmer, this time by YouGov and evidence-based. Oh, wait.....
"But when looking at these new tests, 45% of British adults think they are reasonable, compared to 31% of voters thinking they are unreasonable. This allows Labour to be seen to be reasonably supporting the government as Article 50 is triggered whilst also hedging its bets so they can later vote against Brexit if public support turns during the re-negotiation period. So, although public don’t yet see these conditions as essential and don’t want Labour to oppose Brexit if the government fails to meet them, there are many reasons why this could end up being a shrewd move by Sir Keir Starmer – especially if public opinion does shift over the next couple of years."
Just watched recording of last nights Question Time from Birmingham and am interested in the enthusiastic near estatic reception given to Alex Salmond's plea for the rights of other European citizens.
Given that this was a 50-50 BREXIT city in England is this a sign of a small turning of the tide towards the issues of Immigration and Europe?
Comments
Is this a new form of pairing that has passed me by?!
(There is a very readable book on Russian history by Martin Sixsmith. ("Russia: A 1000-year Chronicle of the Wild East') A better title might have been "Russia: A 1000-year Chronicle of Unrelenting Bloody Misery'.)
Spoke and hub is what worked at Bell labs - public spaces designed to force frequent unplanned interactions between people from different disciplines, and then quiet spaces where people could retreat to work individually or in very small groups to do 'Deep Work'.
A friend at the GW Bioinformatics Center designed the new building for his whole department on that basis. Seems to be working. Also, he's made the common areas nicer than his research students' apartments, so they don't go home even when relaxing watching the game on the 50" screen in the lounge area. Free sodas and coffee for everyone. Lots of social interactions.
Given that this was a 50-50 BREXIT city in England is this a sign of a small turning of the tide towards the issues of Immigration and Europe?
I do hope you don't regard my request as illogical.
The European parliament will veto any Brexit deal that prevents EU citizens who move to the UK during the next two years from having the same rights to live and work in Britain as those already in the country.
1) TM’s letter is conciliatory and friendly emphasising all that is good in Europe and that while we seek to take back control it will be negotiated on the basis of mutual trust and that the benefits of a tariff free trade deal between Countries is of vital interest to all.
2) The UK to affirm it will discharge without dispute those charges which it is required to honour as would be expected of any Country wanting to protect its worldwide reputation for respecting International Law
3) The UK will make the rights of EU residents here and ex pats abroad the first priority and guarantee security to all including any benefit entitlements until we leave in 2019 when a new International work visa system will apply with no entitlement to any benefits or allowances until the worker has resided in the UK and contributed to the system for five years.
4) The new work visa system to reflect the needs of the UK and devolution to the regions of the Country permitted to address various region’s needs (Scotland in particular is in need of immigration)
5) Close co-operation on all matters military and security with particular attention to the Baltics and Balkans
6) An agreement on shared Europe and UK wide reciprocal health care and non-visa travel within.
7) A transitional period to allow for the best arrangements and certainty for business UK and Europe wide.
8) A department of government to interact and input in a mutual way to EU organisations and even the EU on occasions, particularly on defence and immigration/migration
There will be some on the right and UKIP who will not agree with some or all of this but I do believe that Theresa May needs, and will, seek to obtain an agreement that satisfies the 70% or so of sensible remainers and leavers.
It is time to put on one side the terms remainer and leaver and work together for the greater good. I have disliked intensely the lack of security those immigrants living here and absolutely condemn the threats and unacceptable language used by some in creating a hostile atmosphere. It is time we said to everyone living here and contributing to our society you are welcome and thank them for making our country the great country it is
The Brexit quote of the day goes to Nigel Farage:
"If Brexit is a disaster I will go and live abroad. I will go and live somewhere else."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/nigel-farage-will-leave-britain-if-brexit-is-a-disaster-2017-3
Green party submits complaint about Daily Mail to Ipso
Amelia Womack, the Green party’s deputy leader, has submitted a complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the Daily Mail’s coverage of Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon today. Her letter says:
I wish to make a complaint under the editors’ code of practice relating to the Daily Mail’s coverage on March 28 of a meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May.
The coverage breaches clause 12 as the women are being discriminated against due to their gender.
To bring the politicians’ appearance into this story is not only entirely irrelevant but incredibly disrespectful.
This headline and the further derogatory comments inside the paper would not have even been considered, let alone published, if the two politicians in question had been men
The Guardian cartoonist portrayed Cameron as having a condom for a head...day after day after day after day...it wasn't funny the first time, let alone the 1000th.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39410075
The idea nobody comments on how men look is tosh.
The best newspaper at the moment seems to be the New York Times.
*as it is known in the White House.
Make no mistake if there's ANY suggestion of us paying an "exit bill", or of still having relatively high levels of immigration, the Mail and the Sun will go into full Outrage mode. From her year in office, has there been any sign that May would be willing to risk that, given she couldn't even stand firm with a small tax rise when those papers started complaining?
I admit to being gobsmacked when QT came from my old town of Boston a year or so ago. Loads of people standing up for Remain and getting big cheers. I commented here afterwards that I must be talking to a different population.
They voted 76% Leave, so I assume the BBC broadcast had chosen a group from Boston. Massachusetts for the evening.
NEW THREAD
On that note... C U L8tr
Confirmed nut nut...
"But when looking at these new tests, 45% of British adults think they are reasonable, compared to 31% of voters thinking they are unreasonable. This allows Labour to be seen to be reasonably supporting the government as Article 50 is triggered whilst also hedging its bets so they can later vote against Brexit if public support turns during the re-negotiation period. So, although public don’t yet see these conditions as essential and don’t want Labour to oppose Brexit if the government fails to meet them, there are many reasons why this could end up being a shrewd move by Sir Keir Starmer – especially if public opinion does shift over the next couple of years."
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/28/has-labour-finally-found-response-its-brexit-dilem/
"I would be sitting in a circle with our counsellor and other recovering trainspotters, and put my hand up in order to be excused. And then I would sneak off to the loo to read Railway Magazine! Then I would come back to the group, put my hand and go "I got 30 seconds clean!". I was taking the piss, but I was doing it to myself."
The Conservative were less than a thousand votes behind Labour in both 1955 and 1959 were faded steadily throughout the 1960s - as they did in similar urban constituencies throughout Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Gorton_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
The swing to the Conservatives in the 1967 by-election wasn't particularly high given the unpopularity of the then Labour government.
On the same day the Conservatives gained Leicester SW on a swing of over 16%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicester_South_West_by-election,_1967
while the SNP first gained prominence with an huge gain in Hamilton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_by-election,_1967
and a few weeks earlier the Conservatives had gained Clem Atlee's old constituency of Walthamstow West on another swing of over 16%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walthamstow_West_by-election,_1967