Sturgeon won't call a wildcat referendum because she'll lose alot of goodwill from other EU countries, particularly Madrid. She'll need that going forward whatever she wants to do.
In fairness, Howard doesn't mention WAR!!!!, but the talk of 'resolve' against 'another Spanish speaking country' was unfortunate. Argentina was ruled by a quasi-fascist military junta at the time; I imagine the wounds of Franco and the civil war are still raw in the now fully democratic Spain. That kind of juxtaposition is unhelpful to our cause.
It's utter insanity. Spain is a democracy, an ally and an important trading partner.
So the problem with this is all the other parties to the negotiation have nationalistic fantasists as well. Let them all play off each other and you end up upping the ante so much that it's impossible for the actual leaders to sell a deal to their own side.
What's striking about this is how astonishingly shit a leader Theresa May is turning out to be. She should be out there calming things down, instead she's leaving a vacuum where she ends up boxed in by fuckwittery.
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
Except he didn't.
You forgot to say 'Fake News'. It's 2017, that's the proper way to point out errors now.
Carefully avoided.
It was Boris Johnson who mentioned WW3.
Boris Johnson not being careful with his words? Doesn't sound very believable.
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
No we've debunked that. Even Leavers on here accept Dave never uttered it.
We've not debunked it because David Cameron clearly was talking about war: he goes straight from talking about WW2 to Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
Looking on some old BBC pages about the Falklands referendum, the returning officer said there was 1 vote unaccounted for..but that he wasn't going to call for a recount on the basis of that 1 vote.
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
No we've debunked that. Even Leavers on here accept Dave never uttered it.
We've not debunked it because David Cameron clearly was talking about war: he goes straight from talking about WW2 to Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?
That would still debunk the claim he said it would risk WW3. That he talked about the risk of war generally is not as explosive as the claim that was made.
Sturgeon won't call a wildcat referendum because she'll lose alot of goodwill from other EU countries, particularly Madrid. She'll need that going forward whatever she wants to do.
Sturgeon would probably need private finance to hold a freelance referendum. Use of public money on such a venture could invite civil or even crimanal penalties.
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
Except he didn't.
You forgot to say 'Fake News'. It's 2017, that's the proper way to point out errors now.
Carefully avoided.
It was Boris Johnson who mentioned WW3.
Boris Johnson not being careful with his words? Doesn't sound very believable.
Boris also mentioned the bubonic plague, but Leave left that bit on the cutting-room floor.
Sturgeon won't call a wildcat referendum because she'll lose alot of goodwill from other EU countries, particularly Madrid. She'll need that going forward whatever she wants to do.
Sturgeon would probably need private finance to hold a freelance referendum. Use of public money on such a venture could invite civil or even crimanal penalties.
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
No we've debunked that. Even Leavers on here accept Dave never uttered it.
We've not debunked it because David Cameron clearly was talking about war: he goes straight from talking about WW2 to Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?
That would still debunk the claim he said it would risk WW3. That he talked about the risk of war generally is not as explosive as the claim that was made.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
Lol.
Was it only a few short weeks ago that PB Yoons were comforting each other that Sturgeon was bluffing and definitely wasn't going to ask for another referendum which she knew she'd lose? Now it's put her on trial and ban her from politics.
Sturgeon won't call a wildcat referendum because she'll lose alot of goodwill from other EU countries, particularly Madrid. She'll need that going forward whatever she wants to do.
Sturgeon would probably need private finance to hold a freelance referendum. Use of public money on such a venture could invite civil or even crimanal penalties.
How about the SNP blow their money on a boycotted "advisory" referendum just in time for May to turn round and say "fine, hold a real one"....
2013 actual vote share in the English elections up this year
Con 34.5% Lab 21.3% UKIP 20.2% LDem 13,7% Green 3.4% BNP 0.3% Ind/Others 6.6%
and 2009 actual vote shares
Con 43.5% LDem 24.7% Lab 13.5% UKIP 4.6% Green 4.4% BNP 2.5% Ind/Others 6.8%
My forecast for this year
Con 41 LDem 21 Lab 18 UKIP 9 Green 4 Ind/Others 7
A 12 pt swing would be something like Lab 10.3, Con 47.5
The Conservative lead in the opinion polls is greater now than it was in April / May 2009 so if the local elections match them that's possible.
Especially as the areas where Labour is doing relatively well - London and other metropolitan cities don't have local elections.
The actual vote shares in council by elections November to date only in areas with English local elections this year are
Con 38.9% Lab 18.7% LDem 25.0% UKIP 7.7% Green 2.9% Ind/Others 6.6%
Labour doing relatively much better than the opinion polls suggest and a Lab to Con swing from 2013 over only 3.5%
I can't see a 12 pt swing happening from 2013 to be perfectly honest. I think Labour will hold Durham, win the Manchester, West Mids and Liverpool mayoralties. Derbyshire and Notts I am not certain.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
Sturgeon won't call a wildcat referendum because she'll lose alot of goodwill from other EU countries, particularly Madrid. She'll need that going forward whatever she wants to do.
Sturgeon would probably need private finance to hold a freelance referendum. Use of public money on such a venture could invite civil or even crimanal penalties.
Sounds doable, how much does it need?
No idea - but I am sure it is doable, as you say. The point is private finance will make the referendum project look like a pure SNP hobby horse. The unionist parties I expect would boycott it entirely and the result would be meaningless. Sturgeon is overeaching herself and is riding for a fall unless she's careful.
In fairness, Howard doesn't mention WAR!!!!, but the talk of 'resolve' against 'another Spanish speaking country' was unfortunate. Argentina was ruled by a quasi-fascist military junta at the time; I imagine the wounds of Franco and the civil war are still raw in the now fully democratic Spain. That kind of juxtaposition is unhelpful to our cause.
It's utter insanity. Spain is a democracy, an ally and an important trading partner.
So the problem with this is all the other parties to the negotiation have nationalistic fantasists as well. Let them all play off each other and you end up upping the ante so much that it's impossible for the actual leaders to sell a deal to their own side.
What's striking about this is how astonishingly shit a leader Theresa May is turning out to be. She should be out there calming things down, instead she's leaving a vacuum where she ends up boxed in by fuckwittery.
Faced with this 'team', if the EU plays its cards carefully, the UK might end up grovelling and re-applying for membership in 15-20 years. It would then probably be obliged to join the Euro, although admittedly Sweden hasn't done this after 22 years.
'Playing its cards carefully' would mean not being 'nasty' or 'vindictive' and might mean replacing Juncker or Barnier in their proposed roles. Verhofstadt showed a bit more skill by tentatively offering EU citizenship to Remainers who want it. If he was negotiating versus May et al, I think the outcome in 2019-20 could be seen as EU 1, UK 0.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
Lol.
Was it only a few short weeks ago that PB Yoons were comforting each other that Sturgeon was bluffing and definitely wasn't going to ask for another referendum which she knew she'd lose? Now it's put her on trial and ban her from politics.
Not shiteing it at all, oh no.
Most polls show NO would still win an OFFICIAL referendum which Scots only want after a Brexit deal comcluded
“Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
“We have always had to go back in, and always at much higher cost.
“The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.”
He added: “Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt?”
May 9 2016
If that doesn't predict WW3 it pretty clearly riffs on the concept.
2013 actual vote share in the English elections up this year
Con 34.5% Lab 21.3% UKIP 20.2% LDem 13,7% Green 3.4% BNP 0.3% Ind/Others 6.6%
and 2009 actual vote shares
Con 43.5% LDem 24.7% Lab 13.5% UKIP 4.6% Green 4.4% BNP 2.5% Ind/Others 6.8%
My forecast for this year
Con 41 LDem 21 Lab 18 UKIP 9 Green 4 Ind/Others 7
A 12 pt swing would be something like Lab 10.3, Con 47.5
The Conservative lead in the opinion polls is greater now than it was in April / May 2009 so if the local elections match them that's possible.
Especially as the areas where Labour is doing relatively well - London and other metropolitan cities don't have local elections.
The actual vote shares in council by elections November to date only in areas with English local elections this year are
Con 38.9% Lab 18.7% LDem 25.0% UKIP 7.7% Green 2.9% Ind/Others 6.6%
Labour doing relatively much better than the opinion polls suggest and a Lab to Con swing from 2013 of only 3.5%
I have great doubts that a handful of council by-elections in November are a better guide to what will happen in four weeks time than current opinion polls.
In fairness, Howard doesn't mention WAR!!!!, but the talk of 'resolve' against 'another Spanish speaking country' was unfortunate. Argentina was ruled by a quasi-fascist military junta at the time; I imagine the wounds of Franco and the civil war are still raw in the now fully democratic Spain. That kind of juxtaposition is unhelpful to our cause.
It's utter insanity. Spain is a democracy, an ally and an important trading partner.
So the problem with this is all the other parties to the negotiation have nationalistic fantasists as well. Let them all play off each other and you end up upping the ante so much that it's impossible for the actual leaders to sell a deal to their own side.
What's striking about this is how astonishingly shit a leader Theresa May is turning out to be. She should be out there calming things down, instead she's leaving a vacuum where she ends up boxed in by fuckwittery.
Faced with this 'team', if the EU plays its cards carefully, the UK might end up grovelling and re-applying for membership in 15-20 years. It would then probably be obliged to join the Euro, although admittedly Sweden hasn't done this after 22 years.
If we went begging back to rejoin, I don't think there's any probably about it, since we'd have to be in a bad state - they would rightly make us grovel, and that's if they even agreed at all.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
Lol.
Was it only a few short weeks ago that PB Yoons were comforting each other that Sturgeon was bluffing and definitely wasn't going to ask for another referendum which she knew she'd lose? Now it's put her on trial and ban her from politics.
Not shiteing it at all, oh no.
Most polls show NO would still win an OFFICIAL referendum which Scots only want after a Brexit deal comcluded
To quote the last semi effective SLab leader, bring it on. You don't want to spend the next 4 years in Tena pants do you?
2013 actual vote share in the English elections up this year
Con 34.5% Lab 21.3% UKIP 20.2% LDem 13,7% Green 3.4% BNP 0.3% Ind/Others 6.6%
and 2009 actual vote shares
Con 43.5% LDem 24.7% Lab 13.5% UKIP 4.6% Green 4.4% BNP 2.5% Ind/Others 6.8%
My forecast for this year
Con 41 LDem 21 Lab 18 UKIP 9 Green 4 Ind/Others 7
A 12 pt swing would be something like Lab 10.3, Con 47.5
The Conservative lead in the opinion polls is greater now than it was in April / May 2009 so if the local elections match them that's possible.
Especially as the areas where Labour is doing relatively well - London and other metropolitan cities don't have local elections.
The actual vote shares in council by elections November to date only in areas with English local elections this year are
Con 38.9% Lab 18.7% LDem 25.0% UKIP 7.7% Green 2.9% Ind/Others 6.6%
Labour doing relatively much better than the opinion polls suggest and a Lab to Con swing from 2013 over only 3.5%
I can't see a 12 pt swing happening from 2013 to be perfectly honest. I think Labour will hold Durham, win the Manchester, West Mids and Liverpool mayoralties. Derbyshire and Notts I am not certain.
Curtice spoke of a 12% swing when comparing poll figures in 2013 to what we see currently.Labour then had a lead of circa 10%. The actual outcome in May 2013, however, was a Labour lead of just 3% - which would seem to imply a swing of 8 - 9%. That would still be bad for Labour, and I would expect greater losses than the 50 suggested by Rallings & Thrasher.
In fairness, Howard doesn't mention WAR!!!!, but the talk of 'resolve' against 'another Spanish speaking country' was unfortunate. Argentina was ruled by a quasi-fascist military junta at the time; I imagine the wounds of Franco and the civil war are still raw in the now fully democratic Spain. That kind of juxtaposition is unhelpful to our cause.
It's utter insanity. Spain is a democracy, an ally and an important trading partner.
So the problem with this is all the other parties to the negotiation have nationalistic fantasists as well. Let them all play off each other and you end up upping the ante so much that it's impossible for the actual leaders to sell a deal to their own side.
What's striking about this is how astonishingly shit a leader Theresa May is turning out to be. She should be out there calming things down, instead she's leaving a vacuum where she ends up boxed in by fuckwittery.
Faced with this 'team', if the EU plays its cards carefully, the UK might end up grovelling and re-applying for membership in 15-20 years. It would then probably be obliged to join the Euro, although admittedly Sweden hasn't done this after 22 years.
If we went begging back to rejoin, I don't think there's any probably about it, since we'd have to be in a bad state - they would rightly make us grovel, and that's if they even agreed at all.
We will never rejoin the EU, we may rejoin the single market under a future Labour government
Verhofstadt showed a bit more skill by tentatively offering EU citizenship to Remainers who want it
If Verhofstadt pulls that one off then I think our rejoining is certain if enough people take up the offer of citizenship. It keeps the UK partly in the EU, informally entangled and with an interest in seeing the EU do well, especially as the diehard Leavers die off.
The last time a sitting government gained local election seats in a non-GE year was 1989.
In that instance, the sitting PM was ousted just 18 months later after becoming epically unpopular
#justsaying
Kinnock already had a poll lead in 1989 unlike Corbyn
Indeed.
Labour were ahead 42% to 36% in the 1989 local elections.
Notice how much red was on the results map for that year.
Yes and Corbyn has zero chance of matching Kinnock' s 1989 lead this year
Obviously, and I was being facetious with that comment.
Though even so, the 1989 example does go to show again that the seat losses/gains are useless when analysing local election (as does the factoid that William Hague on average gained more seats in local elections than David Cameron did when he was Leader of the Opposition).
It's the projected national voteshares that tell the story - which will probably tell a worse story for Labour than seat losses this year.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
Lol.
Was it only a few short weeks ago that PB Yoons were comforting each other that Sturgeon was bluffing and definitely wasn't going to ask for another referendum which she knew she'd lose? Now it's put her on trial and ban her from politics.
Not shiteing it at all, oh no.
Most polls show NO would still win an OFFICIAL referendum which Scots only want after a Brexit deal comcluded
To quote the last semi effective SLab leader, bring it on. You don't want to spend the next 4 years in Tena pants do you?
There will be no official referendum granted by May until a Brexit deal is concluded at the earliest and maybe no until 2021 provided the SNP win a majority with it as a manifesto commitment
Especially as the areas where Labour is doing relatively well - London and other metropolitan cities don't have local elections.
Admittedly a lot's happened in the past 12 months, but Labour actually did slightly better in marginal areas in the 2016 locals than they did in their "heartlands".
Sturgeon won't call a wildcat referendum because she'll lose alot of goodwill from other EU countries, particularly Madrid. She'll need that going forward whatever she wants to do.
Sturgeon would probably need private finance to hold a freelance referendum. Use of public money on such a venture could invite civil or even crimanal penalties.
Sounds doable, how much does it need?
No idea - but I am sure it is doable, as you say. The point is private finance will make the referendum project look like a pure SNP hobby horse. The unionist parties I expect would boycott it entirely and the result would be meaningless. Sturgeon is overeaching herself and is riding for a fall unless she's careful.
Why would it be illegal, though? I mean it would only be another opinion poll, just a very extensive one asking the opinion of the whole electorate.
And if it would be illegal, wouldn't it be illegal even to take part in it? Police at the polling stations as usual - only this time to arrest anyone who turns up?
The last time a sitting government gained local election seats in a non-GE year was 1989.
In that instance, the sitting PM was ousted just 18 months later after becoming epically unpopular
#justsaying
Kinnock already had a poll lead in 1989 unlike Corbyn
Indeed.
Labour were ahead 42% to 36% in the 1989 local elections.
Notice how much red was on the results map for that year.
Yes and Corbyn has zero chance of matching Kinnock' s 1989 lead this year
Obviously, and I was being facetious with that comment.
Though even so, the 1989 example does go to show again that the seat losses/gains are useless when analysing local election (as does the factoid that William Hague on average gained more seats in local elections than David Cameron did when he was Leader of the Opposition).
It's the projected national voteshares that tell the story - which will probably tell a worse story for Labour than seat losses this year.
In fairness, Howard doesn't mention WAR!!!!, but the talk of 'resolve' against 'another Spanish speaking country' was unfortunate. Argentina was ruled by a quasi-fascist military junta at the time; I imagine the wounds of Franco and the civil war are still raw in the now fully democratic Spain. That kind of juxtaposition is unhelpful to our cause.
It's utter insanity. Spain is a democracy, an ally and an important trading partner.
So the problem with this is all the other parties to the negotiation have nationalistic fantasists as well. Let them all play off each other and you end up upping the ante so much that it's impossible for the actual leaders to sell a deal to their own side.
What's striking about this is how astonishingly shit a leader Theresa May is turning out to be. She should be out there calming things down, instead she's leaving a vacuum where she ends up boxed in by fuckwittery.
Faced with this 'team', if the EU plays its cards carefully, the UK might end up grovelling and re-applying for membership in 15-20 years. It would then probably be obliged to join the Euro, although admittedly Sweden hasn't done this after 22 years.
If we went begging back to rejoin, I don't think there's any probably about it, since we'd have to be in a bad state - they would rightly make us grovel, and that's if they even agreed at all.
We will never rejoin the EU, we may rejoin the single market under a future Labour government
Unlikely the single market was the bit of the EU that appealed to Tories the most. The social chapter etc that appealed to Labour was the EU itself.
If we went begging back to rejoin, I don't think there's any probably about it, since we'd have to be in a bad state - they would rightly make us grovel, and that's if they even agreed at all.
They would let us rejoin because money talks and there would be no rebate and we would add to the stability of the Euro simply because of the inertia of a large economy.
Yes - Spain are playing silly buggers, the EU is giving them the opportunity to do so because they naturally are willing to back up their member, and we are overreacting. The Gibraltarians seems to know this better than anyone.
I thought people in the know like SouthamObserver had already made it clear that, if anyone, it is the Spanish who have been hung out to dry by the EU response. The statement clearly shows that that Gibraltar will not be an issue during the Brexit negotiations and the EU has simply said the status of Gibraltar specifically in relation to the EU will have to be decided after Brexit has occurred and both Spain and the UK will have a say in that.
If we went begging back to rejoin, I don't think there's any probably about it, since we'd have to be in a bad state - they would rightly make us grovel, and that's if they even agreed at all.
They would let us rejoin because money talks and there would be no rebate and we would add to the stability of the Euro simply because of the inertia of a large economy.
A scenario where we wanted to rejoin would be because we were doing badly and they were doing well (and it would have to be significant for both), so they wouldn't need our money, and we were disruptive to the larger goals when we were inside, then left, then changed our minds, how could they trust we would not be similarly fickle again?
I don't ever rule anything out, but the feasible scenarios are limited.
Michael "he likes race horses" Howard says Theresa May would "go to war" to "protect" Gibraltar.
Yet there is zero chance of a Spanish attack on Gibraltar. And it is Britain, not Spain, that is planning to make the border into not only an external EU one, but one across which there is no single market and no customs union [*], against the wishes of a large majority of the Gibraltar population.
Do people get what is happening here?
It also appears to me that there is not going to be a happy-clappy resolution to the Irish border question either, despite all the "we know how to solve problems" attitude that is being projected.
(*) The only other such borders for thousands of miles are around Ceuta and Melilla, which are surrounded by Colditz-style fences.
I understand that Howard was trying to be helpful to Theresa here, but I'm not sure that Leavers' using the language of WAR!!!! in Europe is at all wise. This whole business demands cool heads, or at least the appearance of them.
Some media outlets picked up on the comments and interpreted them as meaning, "Theresa May would go to war to defend Gibraltar".
This is a little uncharitable to the former home secretary and Conservative party leader, he didn't say that.
Especially as the areas where Labour is doing relatively well - London and other metropolitan cities don't have local elections.
Admittedly a lot's happened in the past 12 months, but Labour actually did slightly better in marginal areas in the 2016 locals than they did in their "heartlands".
Labour did surprisingly well in much of southern England in 2016.
I suspect that there's a lot less enthusiasm for Corbyn this year though.
In fairness, Howard doesn't mention WAR!!!!, but the talk of 'resolve' against 'another Spanish speaking country' was unfortunate. Argentina was ruled by a quasi-fascist military junta at the time; I imagine the wounds of Franco and the civil war are still raw in the now fully democratic Spain. That kind of juxtaposition is unhelpful to our cause.
It's utter insanity. Spain is a democracy, an ally and an important trading partner.
So the problem with this is all the other parties to the negotiation have nationalistic fantasists as well. Let them all play off each other and you end up upping the ante so much that it's impossible for the actual leaders to sell a deal to their own side.
What's striking about this is how astonishingly shit a leader Theresa May is turning out to be. She should be out there calming things down, instead she's leaving a vacuum where she ends up boxed in by fuckwittery.
Faced with this 'team', if the EU plays its cards carefully, the UK might end up grovelling and re-applying for membership in 15-20 years. It would then probably be obliged to join the Euro, although admittedly Sweden hasn't done this after 22 years.
If we went begging back to rejoin, I don't think there's any probably about it, since we'd have to be in a bad state - they would rightly make us grovel, and that's if they even agreed at all.
Being in that bad a state would probably mean unable to be a net contributor. I doubt if the EU would touch with a barge-pole a UK that needed hand-outs.
Most elections of this type are rarely one-dimensional. I do think UKIP have a big problem holding the nearly 140 gains from 2013 and the main beneficiaries will be the Conservatives.
As the Conservatives pick up some UKIP seats, the question becomes their possible losses to the LDs - in 2013 the Conservatives lost over 330 seats and the LDs 125 but as a proportion the LD losses were much heavier. To regain all or most of those would be a big step back for the LDs but my suspicion is the recovery won't be uniform by which I mean there will be a recovery in some areas of traditional strength while others will still be moribund and to balance that new areas of activity will emerge - that has been the pattern of the post-2015 recovery.
The UKIP surge in 2013 deprived the Conservatives of overall control of 10 Councils including East Sussex, Suffolk and Warwickshire. Fairly small changes in seat numbers could make these overall majority councils.
Yes - Spain are playing silly buggers, the EU is giving them the opportunity to do so because they naturally are willing to back up their member, and we are overreacting. The Gibraltarians seems to know this better than anyone.
I thought people in the know like SouthamObserver had already made it clear that, if anyone, it is the Spanish who have been hung out to dry by the EU response. The statement clearly shows that that Gibraltar will not be an issue during the Brexit negotiations and the EU has simply said the status of Gibraltar specifically in relation to the EU will have to be decided after Brexit has occurred and both Spain and the UK will have a say in that.
My wording was not sufficiently clear that I regard the EU mentioning it at all as the extent of their helping Spain play silly buggers, since it has caused a ruckus.
In fairness, Howard doesn't mention WAR!!!!, but the talk of 'resolve' against 'another Spanish speaking country' was unfortunate. Argentina was ruled by a quasi-fascist military junta at the time; I imagine the wounds of Franco and the civil war are still raw in the now fully democratic Spain. That kind of juxtaposition is unhelpful to our cause.
It's utter insanity. Spain is a democracy, an ally and an important trading partner.
So the problem with this is all the other parties to the negotiation have nationalistic fantasists as well. Let them all play off each other and you end up upping the ante so much that it's impossible for the actual leaders to sell a deal to their own side.
What's striking about this is how astonishingly shit a leader Theresa May is turning out to be. She should be out there calming things down, instead she's leaving a vacuum where she ends up boxed in by fuckwittery.
Faced with this 'team', if the EU plays its cards carefully, the UK might end up grovelling and re-applying for membership in 15-20 years. It would then probably be obliged to join the Euro, although admittedly Sweden hasn't done this after 22 years.
If we went begging back to rejoin, I don't think there's any probably about it, since we'd have to be in a bad state - they would rightly make us grovel, and that's if they even agreed at all.
We will never rejoin the EU, we may rejoin the single market under a future Labour government
Unlikely the single market was the bit of the EU that appealed to Tories the most. The social chapter etc that appealed to Labour was the EU itself.
Chuka Umunna for example is a plausible future Labour PM and committed to the single market but accepts we have to leave the EU now to respect the referendum. By 2025 we would have had 6 years of work permit requirements, about the same as Germany had from 2004 to 2011
I wonder if a return to EdM wouldn't be Labour's worst move at this point. All he'd have to do is a few self-deprecatory tweets about his car park sarsen, make some transparently insincere left wing noises to soothe the usual fucking idiots and grow a beard. Then he'd be ahead of May in the polls.
Yes - Spain are playing silly buggers, the EU is giving them the opportunity to do so because they naturally are willing to back up their member, and we are overreacting. The Gibraltarians seems to know this better than anyone.
I see it differently - the EU has kicked Gibraltar into the long grass and it only becomes an issue with Spain after we've left. The more excitable members of Remain (we'll sell out Gib) and Leave (war after Spanish invasion) have temporarily lost their senses, whatever they had remaining of them...it is to be hoped they recover them.....
In terms of how people have actually been living in Gibraltar since the 1980s - sure, some queues at the border, but still, freedom of movement and a single market and customs union, which is just what people want - Britain has already sold out Gibraltar. What do you think is more important to people who live there? Being able to have a job and to travel freely in the area, or a GCHQ facility and the British military having rights there?
How many times does it have to be repeated? Gibraltar is not in the Customs Union.
The R1 poll swing caused by the first all-spectrum TV debate was from Hamon to Mélenchon, magnitude 2-2.5%. If R2 is Mélenchon vs Le Pen then Mélenchon will not only receive the "Le Pen is toxic" vote but he will also keep the share of his vote that would otherwise have gone to her, so his chance of winning won't be negligible. But even so, the swing wasn't very exciting and it didn't change R2 polling, which is being done only for pairs chosen from the current top three.
The next debate swing is likely to involve one or more of those three. If it does, and if it's of similar or greater magnitude, it could change R2 polling a lot. A fortiori if membership of the top three changes.
If I had the time, I would analyse the debate swings that gave Fillon and Hamon their nominations. That is the sort of thing we may be looking at on Tuesday and then again on 20 April.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
Free country if they want to squander their votes good luck to them. The nutters are mainly fat old men and a few thickheads , they will not cause much bother to the police who will enjoy cracking a few very thick skulls..
If we went begging back to rejoin, I don't think there's any probably about it, since we'd have to be in a bad state - they would rightly make us grovel, and that's if they even agreed at all.
They would let us rejoin because money talks and there would be no rebate and we would add to the stability of the Euro simply because of the inertia of a large economy.
A scenario where we wanted to rejoin would be because we were doing badly and they were doing well (and it would have to be significant for both), so they wouldn't need our money, and we were disruptive to the larger goals when we were inside, then left, then changed our minds, how could they trust we would not be similarly fickle again?
I don't ever rule anything out, but the feasible scenarios are limited.
Even if we are doing badly, we will still be an economic giant compared to most of the EU countries. Letting us back in would mean that either more money could be shunted to the poorer members or that the large countries that made up our deficit when we left could get a reduction.
€15bn extra p.a. is not fiddling small change.
As for disruption to the larger goals, if we are doing really badly we might look upon our 40 years of EU membership as golden era the same way the Brexiteers regard the 50s/60s.
Adam Fleming @adamfleming £490m is the estimated cost of producing #Passports for ten years from 2019, not the price tag for making them blue.
LOL, all that frothing and any idiot could hav etold you , it will cost exactly that amount to keep them as they are , make them green or purple or yellow. jingo jingo jingotastic
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
Except he didn't.
You forgot to say 'Fake News'. It's 2017, that's the proper way to point out errors now.
Carefully avoided.
It was Boris Johnson who mentioned WW3.
Nope. He only mentioned it in his speech the following day after it had been splashed all over the papers following Cameron's crafty leak. Sorry but your revisionist history holds no sway around here.
Both sides have their lunatics. e.g. Lord Heseltine, who is going round ranting that Brexit means Germany has "won the peace", and that it is unacceptable that Germany should be dominant, despite losing the war.
That must be nice for the Germans to hear, from a very prominent pro-European British politician: that the entire EU has been a scheme by which defeated Nazis plotted a stealthy return to German hegemony.
I had no idea that Tarzan had gone so crazy! But if by "Germany" he means Russia, and by "war" he means what journalists call the "cold war"...
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
No we've debunked that. Even Leavers on here accept Dave never uttered it.
Nope we have not debunked it., You are another of the revisionists happy to lie about what happened and in what order to try and disprove something embarrassing. The sort of sordid behaviour we have come to expect from extremists like you.
In fairness, Howard doesn't mention WAR!!!!, but the talk of 'resolve' against 'another Spanish speaking country' was unfortunate. Argentina was ruled by a quasi-fascist military junta at the time; I imagine the wounds of Franco and the civil war are still raw in the now fully democratic Spain. That kind of juxtaposition is unhelpful to our cause.
It's utter insanity. Spain is a democracy, an ally and an important trading partner.
So the problem with this is all the other parties to the negotiation have nationalistic fantasists as well. Let them all play off each other and you end up upping the ante so much that it's impossible for the actual leaders to sell a deal to their own side.
What's striking about this is how astonishingly shit a leader Theresa May is turning out to be. She should be out there calming things down, instead she's leaving a vacuum where she ends up boxed in by fuckwittery.
Most elections of this type are rarely one-dimensional. I do think UKIP have a big problem holding the nearly 140 gains from 2013 and the main beneficiaries will be the Conservatives.
As the Conservatives pick up some UKIP seats, the question becomes their possible losses to the LDs - in 2013 the Conservatives lost over 330 seats and the LDs 125 but as a proportion the LD losses were much heavier. To regain all or most of those would be a big step back for the LDs but my suspicion is the recovery won't be uniform by which I mean there will be a recovery in some areas of traditional strength while others will still be moribund and to balance that new areas of activity will emerge - that has been the pattern of the post-2015 recovery.
The UKIP surge in 2013 deprived the Conservatives of overall control of 10 Councils including East Sussex, Suffolk and Warwickshire. Fairly small changes in seat numbers could make these overall majority councils.
The big gains by the Conservatives from the LibDems came in 2009.
2013 saw both the Conservatives and LibDems lose councillors to Labour - so if that is reversed we could see both the Conservatives and LibDems make big gains but with relatively few changes between them.
Now if we see middle class leftists return to the LibDems then they could do especially well in Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire and anywhere else where there are university towns.
Sturgeon won't call a wildcat referendum because she'll lose alot of goodwill from other EU countries, particularly Madrid. She'll need that going forward whatever she wants to do.
Sturgeon would probably need private finance to hold a freelance referendum. Use of public money on such a venture could invite civil or even crimanal penalties.
One option I've seen mooted is that she asks a question within the competence of the Scottish government making it 'official' but utterly non-binding so it wouldn't be the same question as in 2014.
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
Except he didn't.
You forgot to say 'Fake News'. It's 2017, that's the proper way to point out errors now.
Carefully avoided.
It was Boris Johnson who mentioned WW3.
Nope. He only mentioned it in his speech the following day after it had been splashed all over the papers following Cameron's crafty leak. Sorry but your revisionist history holds no sway around here.
So what you're saying is that David Cameron didn't mention World War 3 and Boris Johnson did. Thank you for confirming what I wrote.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
Except he didn't.
You forgot to say 'Fake News'. It's 2017, that's the proper way to point out errors now.
Carefully avoided.
It was Boris Johnson who mentioned WW3.
Nope. He only mentioned it in his speech the following day after it had been splashed all over the papers following Cameron's crafty leak. Sorry but your revisionist history holds no sway around here.
So what you're saying is that David Cameron didn't mention World War 3 and Boris Johnson did. Thank you for confirming what I wrote.
Here we go again. This is in substance a prediction of WW3
“Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
“We have always had to go back in, and always at much higher cost.
“The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.”
He added: “Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt?”
Sturgeon won't call a wildcat referendum because she'll lose alot of goodwill from other EU countries, particularly Madrid. She'll need that going forward whatever she wants to do.
Sturgeon would probably need private finance to hold a freelance referendum. Use of public money on such a venture could invite civil or even crimanal penalties.
How about the SNP blow their money on a boycotted "advisory" referendum just in time for May to turn round and say "fine, hold a real one"....
no problem with that, she will need to be dragged to the table screaming and shouting. Imagine she will beat dave to the worst Tory ever title having done nothing.
Sturgeon won't call a wildcat referendum because she'll lose alot of goodwill from other EU countries, particularly Madrid. She'll need that going forward whatever she wants to do.
Sturgeon would probably need private finance to hold a freelance referendum. Use of public money on such a venture could invite civil or even crimanal penalties.
Sounds doable, how much does it need?
No idea - but I am sure it is doable, as you say. The point is private finance will make the referendum project look like a pure SNP hobby horse. The unionist parties I expect would boycott it entirely and the result would be meaningless. Sturgeon is overeaching herself and is riding for a fall unless she's careful.
Sturgeon is not overreaching anything , it is cretinous halfwitted thickos on here spouting drivel as if tehy had a clue about anything regarding Scotalnd never mind what Sturgeon is thinking. Get over yourself you thicko.
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
No we've debunked that. Even Leavers on here accept Dave never uttered it.
Nope we have not debunked it., You are another of the revisionists happy to lie about what happened and in what order to try and disprove something embarrassing. The sort of sordid behaviour we have come to expect from extremists like you.
Erm Richard, you said yourself that the words never crossed Dave's lips. Okay, you also posit the existence of some mysterious early draft of the speech that was floating about. I find that difficult to believe myself, but even if true it merely serves as a flimsy excuse for Leave's misrepresentations of Dave's utterances rather than a justification.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
nutter
I doubt an unauthorised referendum would be criminally illegal, but it would be unlawful in the sense of being outwith Sturgeon's lawful powers and the consequence of that would likely be that she would be personally liable to refund the whole cost of the exercise. I don't know what that would be, but high 7 figures at a minimum surely?
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
Lol.
Was it only a few short weeks ago that PB Yoons were comforting each other that Sturgeon was bluffing and definitely wasn't going to ask for another referendum which she knew she'd lose? Now it's put her on trial and ban her from politics.
Not shiteing it at all, oh no.
Most polls show NO would still win an OFFICIAL referendum which Scots only want after a Brexit deal comcluded
ever hopeful, from jail the witch to you will lose in two posts
Sturgeon won't call a wildcat referendum because she'll lose alot of goodwill from other EU countries, particularly Madrid. She'll need that going forward whatever she wants to do.
Sturgeon would probably need private finance to hold a freelance referendum. Use of public money on such a venture could invite civil or even crimanal penalties.
Sounds doable, how much does it need?
No idea - but I am sure it is doable, as you say. The point is private finance will make the referendum project look like a pure SNP hobby horse.
To be fair, it's not only the private finance that would make it look like that...
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
Free country if they want to squander their votes good luck to them. The nutters are mainly fat old men and a few thickheads , they will not cause much bother to the police who will enjoy cracking a few very thick skulls..
The police and Orange Order don't get on with each other as well as they used to, but the police still usually look the other way when Orange walkers beat somebody up. If the authorities blatantly break the law, they can't complain if people use unlawful means to try to stop them.
It would be far more responsible to respect the Scotland Act, especially given that the majority of Scots voted against independence and the MSPs who were elected on a "victory for Leave will necessitate another indyref" ticket are in a minority at Holyrood. The responsible approach is for the SNP to bring about a Scottish general election and then fight it promising a referendum on their chosen timescale. Then their mandate would be very clear and May would have to accept it. What's the problem with that?
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
nutter
I doubt an unauthorised referendum would be criminally illegal, but it would be unlawful in the sense of being outwith Sturgeon's lawful powers and the consequence of that would likely be that she would be personally liable to refund the whole cost of the exercise. I don't know what that would be, but high 7 figures at a minimum surely?
SNP are not stupid , and there is nothing to stop them having a Scotland wide vote within their remit. They can self fund it. Fanciful frothing by some halfwits on here about trials for Sturgeon etc is just unbelievable.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
Free country if they want to squander their votes good luck to them. The nutters are mainly fat old men and a few thickheads , they will not cause much bother to the police who will enjoy cracking a few very thick skulls..
The police and Orange Order don't get on with each other as well as they used to, but the police still usually look the other way when Orange walkers beat somebody up. If the authorities blatantly break the law, they can't complain if people use unlawful means to try to stop them.
It would be far more responsible to respect the Scotland Act, especially given that the majority of Scots voted against independence and the MSPs who were elected on a "victory for Leave will necessitate another indyref" ticket are in a minority at Holyrood. The responsible approach is for the SNP to bring about a Scottish general election and then fight it promising a referendum on their chosen timescale. Then their mandate would be very clear and May would have to accept it. What's the problem with that?
It is pure fantasy and pant wetting by you and other frothing unionists on here. No-one with any brain cells from Scotland has made any suggestion that they would have an illegal referendum. Why don't you just concentrate on how you plan to invade Spain and save us splitting our sides at your ignorance of Scotland and Scottish affairs.
Michael "he likes race horses" Howard says Theresa May would "go to war" to "protect" Gibraltar.
Yet there is zero chance of a Spanish attack on Gibraltar. And it is Britain, not Spain, that is planning to make the border into not only an external EU one, but one across which there is no single market and no customs union [*], against the wishes of a large majority of the Gibraltar population.
Do people get what is happening here?
It also appears to me that there is not going to be a happy-clappy resolution to the Irish border question either, despite all the "we know how to solve problems" attitude that is being projected.
(*) The only other such borders for thousands of miles are around Ceuta and Melilla, which are surrounded by Colditz-style fences.
I understand that Howard was trying to be helpful to Theresa here, but I'm not sure that Leavers' using the language of WAR!!!! in Europe is at all wise. This whole business demands cool heads, or at least the appearance of them.
Some media outlets picked up on the comments and interpreted them as meaning, "Theresa May would go to war to defend Gibraltar".
This is a little uncharitable to the former home secretary and Conservative party leader, he didn't say that.
Sturgeon won't call a wildcat referendum because she'll lose alot of goodwill from other EU countries, particularly Madrid. She'll need that going forward whatever she wants to do.
Sturgeon would probably need private finance to hold a freelance referendum. Use of public money on such a venture could invite civil or even crimanal penalties.
Sounds doable, how much does it need?
No idea - but I am sure it is doable, as you say. The point is private finance will make the referendum project look like a pure SNP hobby horse. The unionist parties I expect would boycott it entirely and the result would be meaningless. Sturgeon is overeaching herself and is riding for a fall unless she's careful.
Sturgeon is not overreaching anything , it is cretinous halfwitted thickos on here spouting drivel as if tehy had a clue about anything regarding Scotalnd never mind what Sturgeon is thinking. Get over yourself you thicko.
Actually I think Nicola is playing a high risk game but she is a clever politician and I think she sees this as a window of opportunity before a Brexit that could devolve many powers not only to Scotland but Northern Island and Wales which, with the complexities of Independence layered over Brexit, close the door on a winnable referendum for many years hence
In fairness, Howard doesn't mention WAR!!!!, but the talk of 'resolve' against 'another Spanish speaking country' was unfortunate. Argentina was ruled by a quasi-fascist military junta at the time; I imagine the wounds of Franco and the civil war are still raw in the now fully democratic Spain. That kind of juxtaposition is unhelpful to our cause.
It's utter insanity. Spain is a democracy, an ally and an important trading partner.
So the problem with this is all the other parties to the negotiation have nationalistic fantasists as well. Let them all play off each other and you end up upping the ante so much that it's impossible for the actual leaders to sell a deal to their own side.
What's striking about this is how astonishingly shit a leader Theresa May is turning out to be. She should be out there calming things down, instead she's leaving a vacuum where she ends up boxed in by fuckwittery.
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
No we've debunked that. Even Leavers on here accept Dave never uttered it.
Nope we have not debunked it., You are another of the revisionists happy to lie about what happened and in what order to try and disprove something embarrassing. The sort of sordid behaviour we have come to expect from extremists like you.
Erm Richard, you said yourself that the words never crossed Dave's lips. Okay, you also posit the existence of some mysterious early draft of the speech that was floating about. I find that difficult to believe myself, but even if true it merely serves as a flimsy excuse for Leave's misrepresentations of Dave's utterances rather than a justification.
What is this bollocks about Cameron not warning of WW3 if we left?
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
nutter
I doubt an unauthorised referendum would be criminally illegal, but it would be unlawful in the sense of being outwith Sturgeon's lawful powers and the consequence of that would likely be that she would be personally liable to refund the whole cost of the exercise. I don't know what that would be, but high 7 figures at a minimum surely?
SNP are not stupid , and there is nothing to stop them having a Scotland wide vote within their remit. They can self fund it. Fanciful frothing by some halfwits on here about trials for Sturgeon etc is just unbelievable.
There will be no trial for Nicola but any attempt to hold an unofficial referendum with face legal challenges on funding and legality. Remember Gina Miller, no doubt there are many pro Union Gina Miller's in Scotland
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
nutter
I doubt an unauthorised referendum would be criminally illegal, but it would be unlawful in the sense of being outwith Sturgeon's lawful powers and the consequence of that would likely be that she would be personally liable to refund the whole cost of the exercise. I don't know what that would be, but high 7 figures at a minimum surely?
SNP are not stupid , and there is nothing to stop them having a Scotland wide vote within their remit. They can self fund it. Fanciful frothing by some halfwits on here about trials for Sturgeon etc is just unbelievable.
They could try to use public officials but many will refuse. It only takes one local council and you get big trouble. Sure, the SNP could run something as a private organisation, somehow avoiding using public funds. But it wouldn't have any legitimacy. Don't you want legitimacy? How would you even ensure there's no conflict of interest? If you're standing in a vote you shouldn't get to count the ballots.
Here's the solution: call a Scottish general election. Take the risk of losing office. The SNP lost the referendum in 2014. They lost their majority when they promised in 2016 to hold a second indyref in the event of a Leave win. Let's see whether they make it a triple.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
nutter
I doubt an unauthorised referendum would be criminally illegal, but it would be unlawful in the sense of being outwith Sturgeon's lawful powers and the consequence of that would likely be that she would be personally liable to refund the whole cost of the exercise. I don't know what that would be, but high 7 figures at a minimum surely?
SNP are not stupid , and there is nothing to stop them having a Scotland wide vote within their remit. They can self fund it. Fanciful frothing by some halfwits on here about trials for Sturgeon etc is just unbelievable.
They could try to use public officials but many will refuse. It only takes one local council and you get big trouble. Sure, the SNP could run something as a private organisation, somehow avoiding using public funds. But it wouldn't have any legitimacy. Don't you want legitimacy? How would you even ensure there's no conflict of interest? If you're standing in a vote you shouldn't get to count the ballots.
Here's the solution: call a Scottish general election. Take the risk of losing office. The SNP lost the referendum in 2014. They lost their majority when they promised in 2016 to hold a second indyref in the event of a Leave win. Let's see whether they make it a triple.
Well that would put the cat among the pidgeons - is Nicola that brave
Although it's still a swing from Labour to Tories, which is not good at all for mid-term.
(Also, I suspect Rallings & Thrasher made a rare mistake with the 2013 figures -- because it was the first year of the UKIP surge, I think they got their national projections for them higher than they should've been, by assuming they would do better than they actually would in places like London where there weren't any elections that year.)
Although it's still a swing from Labour to Tories, which is not good at all for mid-term.
(Also, I suspect Rallings & Thrasher made a rare mistake with the 2013 figures -- because it was the first year of the UKIP surge, I think they got their national projections for them higher than they should've been, by assuming they would do better than they actually would in places like London where there weren't any elections that year.)
Yes but it says more about the strength of the Tories than the weakness of Labour.
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
No we've debunked that. Even Leavers on here accept Dave never uttered it.
Nope we have not debunked it., You are another of the revisionists happy to lie about what happened and in what order to try and disprove something embarrassing. The sort of sordid behaviour we have come to expect from extremists like you.
Erm Richard, you said yourself that the words never crossed Dave's lips. Okay, you also posit the existence of some mysterious early draft of the speech that was floating about. I find that difficult to believe myself, but even if true it merely serves as a flimsy excuse for Leave's misrepresentations of Dave's utterances rather than a justification.
What is this bollocks about Cameron not warning of WW3 if we left?
Thought the bus was behind a F1 car today. A corner in the road revealed the front of the car - it was a 3-wheeler! Never seen a car like it before.
Good afternoon.
You must be even younger than I thought you were.
Seen lots of 3-wheelers (my uncle had one - he had to lift the bonnet to kick-start the motorbike engine inside; family had to walk up significant hills) but never one with a rear view that looked like a F1 vehicle.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
Lol.
Was it only a few short weeks ago that PB Yoons were comforting each other that Sturgeon was bluffing and definitely wasn't going to ask for another referendum which she knew she'd lose? Now it's put her on trial and ban her from politics.
Not shiteing it at all, oh no.
Most polls show NO would still win an OFFICIAL referendum which Scots only want after a Brexit deal comcluded
Sturgeon is cunning though. Even a post Brexit indyref means that May will have to be very attentive to Scottish positions, or there would be a backlash post Brexit. Not to forget that Ruth Davidson is a prominent remainer too.
Whatever the timing, Scotland will be heard as a result.
The Guardian is reporting that Michael Howard is threatening war with Spain over Gibraltar. A bit surprised, he always seemed pretty sensible.
I suspect Howard was just saying that Theresa's commitment to Gibraltar goes as far as possible in the Brexit era - up to and (theoretically) including armed conflict. (Let's not be like the Leave campaign and completely fabricate the existence of WAR!!!! rhetoric in Dave's speech.) Nevertheless even to mention WAR!!!! doesn't help matters in these sensitive times. Howard needs to duck out for a bit and let things simmer down.
It was Cameron who said voting LEAVE would risk World War Three.
No we've debunked that. Even Leavers on here accept Dave never uttered it.
Nope we have not debunked it., You are another of the revisionists happy to lie about what happened and in what order to try and disprove something embarrassing. The sort of sordid behaviour we have come to expect from extremists like you.
Erm Richard, you said yourself that the words never crossed Dave's lips. Okay, you also posit the existence of some mysterious early draft of the speech that was floating about. I find that difficult to believe myself, but even if true it merely serves as a flimsy excuse for Leave's misrepresentations of Dave's utterances rather than a justification.
What is this bollocks about Cameron not warning of WW3 if we left?
And there is video of him actually saying it, from 18:24 on.
Some Rejoiners are claiming that because he didn't say the words "Brexit will lead to WWIII" he didn't say that Brexit would lead to WWIII.
I see. Just another of those too-many-to-count occasions where the UK turning its back on Europe led to serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries, then.
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
Free country if they want to squander their votes good luck to them. The nutters are mainly fat old men and a few thickheads , they will not cause much bother to the police who will enjoy cracking a few very thick skulls..
The police and Orange Order don't get on with each other as well as they used to, but the police still usually look the other way when Orange walkers beat somebody up. If the authorities blatantly break the law, they can't complain if people use unlawful means to try to stop them.
It would be far more responsible to respect the Scotland Act, especially given that the majority of Scots voted against independence and the MSPs who were elected on a "victory for Leave will necessitate another indyref" ticket are in a minority at Holyrood. The responsible approach is for the SNP to bring about a Scottish general election and then fight it promising a referendum on their chosen timescale. Then their mandate would be very clear and May would have to accept it. What's the problem with that?
What other parts of the SNP manifesto are they not allowed to enact due to being a minority government?
Meanwhile the governing party in Scotland is threatening to hold an illegal plebiscite. What happens if the other parties boycott it? Will the governing party declare the result of a plebiscite of its own supporters - plus some clinging-to-the-past "let's stop climate change" Green nutters - to be legitimate? What happens if the Orange Order turn up at the illegal polling stations with pickaxe handles to try to prevent such a flagrant breach of the Scotland Act?
Everything seems to be going the Kremlin's way.
That is one scenario where we could learn from Spain. In 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President for holding an illegal independence referendum and put him on trial. He was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
Lol.
Was it only a few short weeks ago that PB Yoons were comforting each other that Sturgeon was bluffing and definitely wasn't going to ask for another referendum which she knew she'd lose? Now it's put her on trial and ban her from politics.
Not shiteing it at all, oh no.
Most polls show NO would still win an OFFICIAL referendum which Scots only want after a Brexit deal comcluded
Sturgeon is cunning though. Even a post Brexit indyref means that May will have to be very attentive to Scottish positions, or there would be a backlash post Brexit. Not to forget that Ruth Davidson is a prominent remainer too.
Whatever the timing, Scotland will be heard as a result.
Comments
What's striking about this is how astonishingly shit a leader Theresa May is turning out to be. She should be out there calming things down, instead she's leaving a vacuum where she ends up boxed in by fuckwittery.
The narrow vote, was an overwhelming mandate for Brexiteers to claim whatever they like, which must now be accepted as the literal truth for all time.
It is the will of the people that Dave claimed the vote would start World War III, and therefore it must be so.
I, for one, welcome our new Brexit overlords.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?
And there's a bit more in the same vein.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/05/camerons-speech-on-brexit-full-text.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/politics/1170516/boris-johnson-brands-pm-totally-demented-for-saying-brexit-could-start-world-war-three/
Was it only a few short weeks ago that PB Yoons were comforting each other that Sturgeon was bluffing and definitely wasn't going to ask for another referendum which she knew she'd lose? Now it's put her on trial and ban her from politics.
Not shiteing it at all, oh no.
Labour were ahead 42% to 36% in the 1989 local elections.
Notice how much red was on the results map for that year.
Con 38.9%
Lab 18.7%
LDem 25.0%
UKIP 7.7%
Green 2.9%
Ind/Others 6.6%
Labour doing relatively much better than the opinion polls suggest and a Lab to Con swing from 2013 of only 3.5%
A press officer for the party said the proposal was being "looked into" and policy details would not be outlined yet.
Well, why even mention it right now then?!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39471102
Derbyshire and Notts I am not certain.
'Playing its cards carefully' would mean not being 'nasty' or 'vindictive' and might mean replacing Juncker or Barnier in their proposed roles. Verhofstadt showed a bit more skill by tentatively offering EU citizenship to Remainers who want it. If he was negotiating versus May et al, I think the outcome in 2019-20 could be seen as EU 1, UK 0.
“We have always had to go back in, and always at much higher cost.
“The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.”
He added: “Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt?”
May 9 2016
If that doesn't predict WW3 it pretty clearly riffs on the concept.
But we will see.
You don't want to spend the next 4 years in Tena pants do you?
If Verhofstadt pulls that one off then I think our rejoining is certain if enough people take up the offer of citizenship. It keeps the UK partly in the EU, informally entangled and with an interest in seeing the EU do well, especially as the diehard Leavers die off.
Though even so, the 1989 example does go to show again that the seat losses/gains are useless when analysing local election (as does the factoid that William Hague on average gained more seats in local elections than David Cameron did when he was Leader of the Opposition).
It's the projected national voteshares that tell the story - which will probably tell a worse story for Labour than seat losses this year.
And if it would be illegal, wouldn't it be illegal even to take part in it? Police at the polling stations as usual - only this time to arrest anyone who turns up?
Good afternoon, everyone.
I don't ever rule anything out, but the feasible scenarios are limited.
This is a little uncharitable to the former home secretary and Conservative party leader, he didn't say that.
http://news.sky.com/story/gibraltar-row-shows-scale-of-pms-brexit-challenge-10822312
I suspect that there's a lot less enthusiasm for Corbyn this year though.
Most elections of this type are rarely one-dimensional. I do think UKIP have a big problem holding the nearly 140 gains from 2013 and the main beneficiaries will be the Conservatives.
As the Conservatives pick up some UKIP seats, the question becomes their possible losses to the LDs - in 2013 the Conservatives lost over 330 seats and the LDs 125 but as a proportion the LD losses were much heavier. To regain all or most of those would be a big step back for the LDs but my suspicion is the recovery won't be uniform by which I mean there will be a recovery in some areas of traditional strength while others will still be moribund and to balance that new areas of activity will emerge - that has been the pattern of the post-2015 recovery.
The UKIP surge in 2013 deprived the Conservatives of overall control of 10 Councils including East Sussex, Suffolk and Warwickshire. Fairly small changes in seat numbers could make these overall majority councils.
The next debate swing is likely to involve one or more of those three. If it does, and if it's of similar or greater magnitude, it could change R2 polling a lot. A fortiori if membership of the top three changes.
If I had the time, I would analyse the debate swings that gave Fillon and Hamon their nominations. That is the sort of thing we may be looking at on Tuesday and then again on 20 April.
€15bn extra p.a. is not fiddling small change.
As for disruption to the larger goals, if we are doing really badly we might look upon our 40 years of EU membership as golden era the same way the Brexiteers regard the 50s/60s.
2013 saw both the Conservatives and LibDems lose councillors to Labour - so if that is reversed we could see both the Conservatives and LibDems make big gains but with relatively few changes between them.
Now if we see middle class leftists return to the LibDems then they could do especially well in Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire and anywhere else where there are university towns.
“Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
“We have always had to go back in, and always at much higher cost.
“The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.”
He added: “Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt?”
David Cameron May 9 2016
Vote Corbyn today for jam tomorrow!
It would be far more responsible to respect the Scotland Act, especially given that the majority of Scots voted against independence and the MSPs who were elected on a "victory for Leave will necessitate another indyref" ticket are in a minority at Holyrood. The responsible approach is for the SNP to bring about a Scottish general election and then fight it promising a referendum on their chosen timescale. Then their mandate would be very clear and May would have to accept it. What's the problem with that?
Thought the bus was behind a F1 car today. A corner in the road revealed the front of the car - it was a 3-wheeler! Never seen a car like it before.
Oh, the EU....
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-the-uks-strength-and-security-in-the-eu-9-may-2016
And there is video of him actually saying it, from 18:24 on.
Conservatives 31%
Labour 29%
Lib Dems 22%
UKIP 10%
You must be even younger than I thought you were.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/848542891496624128
At the back, and it could've been a Morgan.
Here's the solution: call a Scottish general election. Take the risk of losing office. The SNP lost the referendum in 2014. They lost their majority when they promised in 2016 to hold a second indyref in the event of a Leave win. Let's see whether they make it a triple.
(Also, I suspect Rallings & Thrasher made a rare mistake with the 2013 figures -- because it was the first year of the UKIP surge, I think they got their national projections for them higher than they should've been, by assuming they would do better than they actually would in places like London where there weren't any elections that year.)
Whatever the timing, Scotland will be heard as a result.