I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
The UK will be a vassal of the EU? I thought we never lost sovereignty?
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
How so? What meaningful difference will it make? Embarrassing, maybe, but England is the economic might on this Island.
England is not the economic or political might in this continent, and we are now a supplicant to the EU indefinitely if we don't want to jump off a cliff edge.
The UK is a supplicant to the EU? Right. Remind me again of the EU budget contributions.
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
Scotland as a "new" state. Intriguing. It implies leaving everything you had before behind.
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
How so? What meaningful difference will it make? Embarrassing, maybe, but England is the economic might on this Island.
England is not the economic or political might in this continent, and we are now a supplicant to the EU indefinitely if we don't want to jump off a cliff edge.
Yes we are. We are one of the largest economies in Europe and are currently forecast to overtake Germany within my lifetime.
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
How so? What meaningful difference will it make? Embarrassing, maybe, but England is the economic might on this Island.
England is not the economic or political might in this continent, and we are now a supplicant to the EU indefinitely if we don't want to jump off a cliff edge.
Don't be so dramatic. I voted remain and am a massive supporter of the EU, but to suggest that we are now a 'vassal state' is ridiculous. The UK, or even England & Wales in the future will be fine outside of the EU.
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
How so? What meaningful difference will it make? Embarrassing, maybe, but England is the economic might on this Island.
England is not the economic or political might in this continent, and we are now a supplicant to the EU indefinitely if we don't want to jump off a cliff edge.
Don't be so dramatic. I voted remain and am a massive supporter of the EU, but to suggest that we are now a 'vassal state' is ridiculous. The UK, or even England & Wales in the future will be fine outside of the EU.
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
How so? What meaningful difference will it make? Embarrassing, maybe, but England is the economic might on this Island.
England is not the economic or political might in this continent, and we are now a supplicant to the EU indefinitely if we don't want to jump off a cliff edge.
Yes we are. We are one of the largest economies in Europe and are currently forecast to overtake Germany within my lifetime.
What immigration projections are that forecast based on?
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
The UK will be a vassal of the EU? I thought we never lost sovereignty?
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
How so? What meaningful difference will it make? Embarrassing, maybe, but England is the economic might on this Island.
England is not the economic or political might in this continent, and we are now a supplicant to the EU indefinitely if we don't want to jump off a cliff edge.
Don't be so dramatic. I voted remain and am a massive supporter of the EU, but to suggest that we are now a 'vassal state' is ridiculous. The UK, or even England & Wales in the future will be fine outside of the EU.
Read the posts from FF43 at the end of last night's thread for an explanation of why this is the case.
That's rather a sinister one even by US standards. I mean, average kooks about aliens, Elvis Presley, the Mithraic cult and even 9/11 truthers are one thing. But threatening to shoot a man who lost his son in a school shooting, that's just surreal.
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
How so? What meaningful difference will it make? Embarrassing, maybe, but England is the economic might on this Island.
England is not the economic or political might in this continent, and we are now a supplicant to the EU indefinitely if we don't want to jump off a cliff edge.
Don't be so dramatic. I voted remain and am a massive supporter of the EU, but to suggest that we are now a 'vassal state' is ridiculous. The UK, or even England & Wales in the future will be fine outside of the EU.
Read the posts from FF43 at the end of last night's thread for an explanation of why this is the case.
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
Brexit illustrates almost absolutely that Sindy is a task of gargantuan proportion and costs. It is a separation far more complex than Brexit.
It also proves the EU's thinking on the flow of orderly withdrawal, debt obligation, re-engagement and intruding into bilateral affairs (see Gibraltar).
God knows how little Nikki would explain this all away.
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
How so? What meaningful difference will it make? Embarrassing, maybe, but England is the economic might on this Island.
England is not the economic or political might in this continent, and we are now a supplicant to the EU indefinitely if we don't want to jump off a cliff edge.
Don't be so dramatic. I voted remain and am a massive supporter of the EU, but to suggest that we are now a 'vassal state' is ridiculous. The UK, or even England & Wales in the future will be fine outside of the EU.
Read the posts from FF43 at the end of last night's thread for an explanation of why this is the case.
To slightly misquote Blackadder, compared to the current leader Labour would be making more progress if led by an asthmatic ant carrying heavy shopping.
That's rather a sinister one even by US standards. I mean, average kooks about aliens, Elvis Presley, the Mithraic cult and even 9/11 truthers are one thing. But threatening to shoot a man who lost his son in a school shooting, that's just surreal.
Alex Jones is a knob.
I would use stronger language but this is a family site.
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
How so? What meaningful difference will it make? Embarrassing, maybe, but England is the economic might on this Island.
England is not the economic or political might in this continent, and we are now a supplicant to the EU indefinitely if we don't want to jump off a cliff edge.
Don't be so dramatic. I voted remain and am a massive supporter of the EU, but to suggest that we are now a 'vassal state' is ridiculous. The UK, or even England & Wales in the future will be fine outside of the EU.
Read the posts from FF43 at the end of last night's thread for an explanation of why this is the case.
Yes we'll be fine, but we won't be in control.
Ah, the 15 year Brexit process?
The one where we aren't in control of our choices
They have immense faith in the concept of the great demon WTO.
That's rather a sinister one even by US standards. I mean, average kooks about aliens, Elvis Presley, the Mithraic cult and even 9/11 truthers are one thing. But threatening to shoot a man who lost his son in a school shooting, that's just surreal.
Lucky no-one was killed. And as in the nature of the screwed-up nature of conspiracy theorists, some people still pretend to believe (or more worryingly, really do believe) that the above case was a false-flag operation, and there really is a child abuse ring operating out of the pizza joint ...
The UK will be a vassal of the EU? I thought we never lost sovereignty?
We lost it last Wednesday.
We lost influence last Wednesday. That's different from sovereignty, but arguably more important in reality. We gained notional sovereignty - we can theoretically say we won't do this or that, unlike when we were bound by collective decisions. But because we are no longer able to influence those collective decisions, which nevertheless affect us, we end up with less actual say over our own affairs. Counter-intuitive.
That's rather a sinister one even by US standards. I mean, average kooks about aliens, Elvis Presley, the Mithraic cult and even 9/11 truthers are one thing. But threatening to shoot a man who lost his son in a school shooting, that's just surreal.
Alex Jones is a knob.
I would use stronger language but this is a family site.
May I suggest some rhyming slang? After this memorable incident involving the then Shadow Secretary of State for education, in education we now use the expression 'a Tristram'.
The UK will be a vassal of the EU? I thought we never lost sovereignty?
We lost it last Wednesday.
We lost influence last Wednesday. That's different from sovereignty, but arguably more important in reality. We gained notional sovereignty - we can theoretically say we won't do this or that, unlike when we were bound by collective decisions. But because we are no longer able to influence those collective decisions, which nevertheless affect us, we end up with less actual say over our own affairs. Counter-intuitive.
Influence? 8% of the QMV vote. 1/28th of the right to veto.
Is there anything more minor than a minor shareholder?
Sorry to disappoint, but if they did support anyone it'd be the defender. No way they'd support an aggressor, especially given the views of the inhabitants.
The UK will be a vassal of the EU? I thought we never lost sovereignty?
We lost it last Wednesday.
We lost influence last Wednesday. That's different from sovereignty, but arguably more important in reality. We gained notional sovereignty - we can theoretically say we won't do this or that, unlike when we were bound by collective decisions. But because we are no longer able to influence those collective decisions, which nevertheless affect us, we end up with less actual say over our own affairs. Counter-intuitive.
Influence? 8% of the vote.
Is there anything more minor than a minor shareholder?
The vote's the end of the process, not the beginning. Influence occurs from the start of negotiating a change. How can we frame this change to our benefit? And the large countries have much more influence at those stages than during the actual vote.
That's rather a sinister one even by US standards. I mean, average kooks about aliens, Elvis Presley, the Mithraic cult and even 9/11 truthers are one thing. But threatening to shoot a man who lost his son in a school shooting, that's just surreal.
Lucky no-one was killed. And as in the nature of the screwed-up nature of conspiracy theorists, some people still pretend to believe (or more worryingly, really do believe) that the above case was a false-flag operation, and there really is a child abuse ring operating out of the pizza joint ...
I start to think more kindly of the pseudo scholarship I have recently been critiquing from the likes of Dorothy Murdock, Richard Carrier and Rene Salm.
They may be delusional and frequently unpleasant but at least they're not actually evil.
The UK will be a vassal of the EU? I thought we never lost sovereignty?
We lost it last Wednesday.
We lost influence last Wednesday. That's different from sovereignty, but arguably more important in reality. We gained notional sovereignty - we can theoretically say we won't do this or that, unlike when we were bound by collective decisions. But because we are no longer able to influence those collective decisions, which nevertheless affect us, we end up with less actual say over our own affairs. Counter-intuitive.
Influence? 8% of the QMV vote. 1/28th of the right to veto.
Is there anything more minor than a minor shareholder?
The EU works on horse-trading. Members trade the things they don't care about for those that they do. A country with the weight of the UK can avoid most of the things they really hate and can win a good proportion of things they really want. Now it will be close to zero.
Michael Howard reminding everyone he is a swivel-eyed lunatic. And all because the EU has pointed out Gibraltar is a matter for the Spanish and the UK to deal with, and that as an EU member state Spain gets to say whether the Brexit deal will apply to Gibraltar.
That's rather a sinister one even by US standards. I mean, average kooks about aliens, Elvis Presley, the Mithraic cult and even 9/11 truthers are one thing. But threatening to shoot a man who lost his son in a school shooting, that's just surreal.
Lucky no-one was killed. And as in the nature of the screwed-up nature of conspiracy theorists, some people still pretend to believe (or more worryingly, really do believe) that the above case was a false-flag operation, and there really is a child abuse ring operating out of the pizza joint ...
Hard to know what to do about it... Must be so hard to have lost a child and then be attacked for making it up.
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
How so? What meaningful difference will it make? Embarrassing, maybe, but England is the economic might on this Island.
England is not the economic or political might in this continent, and we are now a supplicant to the EU indefinitely if we don't want to jump off a cliff edge.
Don't be so dramatic. I voted remain and am a massive supporter of the EU, but to suggest that we are now a 'vassal state' is ridiculous. The UK, or even England & Wales in the future will be fine outside of the EU.
Read the posts from FF43 at the end of last night's thread for an explanation of why this is the case.
Yes we'll be fine, but we won't be in control.
Why should we listen to anything he says on the matter when he exhibits the same degree of ignorance about the workings of the EU as you do?
Thinking of this daft row about us going to war over Gibraltar I am not sure that those who are outraged may represent the majority view.
Indeed Downing Street's states
'The Prime Minister will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, nor will it ever enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content'
Clear statement of support that is unambiguous and correct
No two. May well be backed up by Russian money in the markets to give the impression of momentum.
I wasn't sure what movement you were referring to. Fillon looks static on the wikipedia list of polls.
Because it is not a recognised poll. Russian News Agencies are reporting their own polls saying Fillon leads. It is a none-too-subtle way of influencing the election. The question of why Fillon was shortening has been raised a couple of times on here in the past few days. This may be an answer.
No two. May well be backed up by Russian money in the markets to give the impression of momentum.
I wasn't sure what movement you were referring to. Fillon looks static on the wikipedia list of polls.
Because it is not a recognised poll. Russian News Agencies are reporting their own polls saying Fillon leads. It is a none-too-subtle way of influencing the election.
Ohhh okay! Yeah, not sure how helpful that will be!
No two. May well be backed up by Russian money in the markets to give the impression of momentum.
I wasn't sure what movement you were referring to. Fillon looks static on the wikipedia list of polls.
Because it is not a recognised poll. Russian News Agencies are reporting their own polls saying Fillon leads. It is a none-too-subtle way of influencing the election.
Ohhh okay! Yeah, not sure how helpful that will be!
"It quoted Moscow-based Brand Analytics, an online audience research firm, as saying that its study based on an analysis of French social media put Fillon out in front."
Members trade the things they don't care about for those that they do.
Given that we have voted Leave, whoever was doing the trading on our behalf clearly failed to convince the UK public that they had done a competent job in this respect.
Thinking of this daft row about us going to war over Gibraltar I am not sure that those who are outraged may represent the majority view.
Indeed Downing Street's states
'The Prime Minister will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, nor will it ever enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content'
Clear statement of support that is unambiguous and correct
I imagine this rather contrived row is playing pretty well for TM - she gets to be seen as standing up for Britain, taking a firm line etc...
Thinking of this daft row about us going to war over Gibraltar I am not sure that those who are outraged may represent the majority view.
Indeed Downing Street's states
'The Prime Minister will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, nor will it ever enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content'
Clear statement of support that is unambiguous and correct
I imagine this rather contrived row is playing pretty well for TM - she gets to be seen as standing up for Britain, taking a firm line etc...
Members trade the things they don't care about for those that they do.
Given that we have voted Leave, whoever was doing the trading on our behalf clearly failed to convince the UK public that they had done a competent job in this respect.
I agree about that.
It's a lack of interest, I guess. People don't much like the EU and have even less interest in it, so they misunderstand what it was doing, leading to the various false assumptions behind Brexit. What we are seeing now is those assumptions unwinding.
Members trade the things they don't care about for those that they do.
Given that we have voted Leave, whoever was doing the trading on our behalf clearly failed to convince the UK public that they had done a competent job in this respect.
I agree about that.
It's a lack of interest, I guess. People don't much like the EU and have even less interest in it, so they misunderstand what it was doing, leading to the various false assumptions behind Brexit. What we are seeing now is those assumptions unwinding.
The failure to keep UK in the EU is down to a complete failure by the likes of Junckers and others to listen to the demands for change to what they see as their precious project and legacy and the irony for Juncker's is that he was in charge when the UK resigned and that will be his legacy. David Cameron was right when he voted against him.
If they had moved to moderate free movement to free movement subject to confirmed employment I do not think we would have left
Members trade the things they don't care about for those that they do.
Given that we have voted Leave, whoever was doing the trading on our behalf clearly failed to convince the UK public that they had done a competent job in this respect.
I agree about that.
It's a lack of interest, I guess. People don't much like the EU and have even less interest in it, so they misunderstand what it was doing, leading to the various false assumptions behind Brexit. What we are seeing now is those assumptions unwinding.
If anything, Brexit is proceeding more smoothly than anticipated.
The economics have been stellar so far and the early negotiation soundings point to a constructive arrangement.
We have two years now to parallel plan for WTO if need be.
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
Brexit illustrates almost absolutely that Sindy is a task of gargantuan proportion and costs. It is a separation far more complex than Brexit.
It also proves the EU's thinking on the flow of orderly withdrawal, debt obligation, re-engagement and intruding into bilateral affairs (see Gibraltar).
God knows how little Nikki would explain this all away.
With due respect, that is just wrong. You are confusing complex with complicated. Brexit has a level of complexity that is unprecedented... for example, the number of primary parties involved (at least 33), their different, sometimes conflicting, interests that will change over time makes Brexit highly complex... Scottish independence would involve two parties. Seperating, for example, HMRC into Scottish and rUK organisation will be complicated but perfectly doable given time and resources.
Members trade the things they don't care about for those that they do.
Given that we have voted Leave, whoever was doing the trading on our behalf clearly failed to convince the UK public that they had done a competent job in this respect.
I agree about that.
It's a lack of interest, I guess. People don't much like the EU and have even less interest in it, so they misunderstand what it was doing, leading to the various false assumptions behind Brexit. What we are seeing now is those assumptions unwinding.
The failure to keep UK in the EU is down to a complete failure by the likes of Junckers and others to listen to the demands for change to what they see as their precious project and legacy and the irony for Juncker's is that he was in charge when the UK resigned and that will be his legacy. David Cameron was right when he voted against him.
If they had moved to moderate free movement to free movement subject to confirmed employment I do not think we would have left
I agree with your first paragraph. The worst thing (for them and us) is that so many apparatchiks within the EU are deaf. It's bad for them, as their project is not universally popular within the member states, and we might not be the last to leave. It's bad for us, as rather than address the complaints people have (some of which are even reasonable), they may choose to punish us instead, pour encourager les autres.
Members trade the things they don't care about for those that they do.
Given that we have voted Leave, whoever was doing the trading on our behalf clearly failed to convince the UK public that they had done a competent job in this respect.
I agree about that.
It's a lack of interest, I guess. People don't much like the EU and have even less interest in it, so they misunderstand what it was doing, leading to the various false assumptions behind Brexit. What we are seeing now is those assumptions unwinding.
The failure to keep UK in the EU is down to a complete failure by the likes of Junckers and others to listen to the demands for change to what they see as their precious project and legacy and the irony for Juncker's is that he was in charge when the UK resigned and that will be his legacy. David Cameron was right when he voted against him.
If they had moved to moderate free movement to free movement subject to confirmed employment I do not think we would have left
I agree with your first paragraph. The worst thing (for them and us) is that so many apparatchiks within the EU are deaf. It's bad for them, as their project is not universally popular within the member states, and we might not be the last to leave. It's bad for us, as rather than address the complaints people have (some of which are even reasonable), they may choose to punish us instead, pour encourager les autres.
They do have to comply with the various requirements to act fairly and foster good relations. If there is any indication of punishment then they are laying themselves open to substantial damages at sometime in the future
A lucky escape indeed. It was worth flouting election law to return David Cameron to Number 10.
The Conservatives are not unique in that situation during that election.
Do you really think that a small-majority Ed-led government, yet alone a minority one, would have been better that what we have now? If so, and putting your party preference to one side, on what basis?
If you are tempted to talk about the EU referendum, that was inevitable. And the later it as left, the more sure a leave victory would be (see my previous post below).
Members trade the things they don't care about for those that they do.
Given that we have voted Leave, whoever was doing the trading on our behalf clearly failed to convince the UK public that they had done a competent job in this respect.
I agree about that.
It's a lack of interest, I guess. People don't much like the EU and have even less interest in it, so they misunderstand what it was doing, leading to the various false assumptions behind Brexit. What we are seeing now is those assumptions unwinding.
The failure to keep UK in the EU is down to a complete failure by the likes of Junckers and others to listen to the demands for change to what they see as their precious project and legacy and the irony for Juncker's is that he was in charge when the UK resigned and that will be his legacy. David Cameron was right when he voted against him.
If they had moved to moderate free movement to free movement subject to confirmed employment I do not think we would have left
I agree with your first paragraph. The worst thing (for them and us) is that so many apparatchiks within the EU are deaf. It's bad for them, as their project is not universally popular within the member states, and we might not be the last to leave. It's bad for us, as rather than address the complaints people have (some of which are even reasonable), they may choose to punish us instead, pour encourager les autres.
They do have to comply with the various requirements to act fairly and foster good relations. If there is any indication of punishment then they are laying themselves open to substantial damages at sometime in the future
I am not that optimistic for a multitude of reasons. The regulations will give them loads of room for mischief if they choose, and which courts will decide on any damages?
We really don't want to get into a MAD situation. That's why I still think a quick, short and sharp Brexit's the best option.
Members trade the things they don't care about for those that they do.
Given that we have voted Leave, whoever was doing the trading on our behalf clearly failed to convince the UK public that they had done a competent job in this respect.
I agree about that.
It's a lack of interest, I guess. People don't much like the EU and have even less interest in it, so they misunderstand what it was doing, leading to the various false assumptions behind Brexit. What we are seeing now is those assumptions unwinding.
The failure to keep UK in the EU is down to a complete failure by the likes of Junckers and others to listen to the demands for change to what they see as their precious project and legacy and the irony for Juncker's is that he was in charge when the UK resigned and that will be his legacy. David Cameron was right when he voted against him.
If they had moved to moderate free movement to free movement subject to confirmed employment I do not think we would have left
I agree with your first paragraph. The worst thing (for them and us) is that so many apparatchiks within the EU are deaf. It's bad for them, as their project is not universally popular within the member states, and we might not be the last to leave. It's bad for us, as rather than address the complaints people have (some of which are even reasonable), they may choose to punish us instead, pour encourager les autres.
They do have to comply with the various requirements to act fairly and foster good relations. If there is any indication of punishment then they are laying themselves open to substantial damages at sometime in the future
I am not that optimistic for a multitude of reasons. The regulations will give them loads of room for mischief if they choose, and which courts will decide on any damages?
We really don't want to get into a MAD situation. That's why I still think a quick, short and sharp Brexit's the best option.
I couldn't agree more but in the end if the settlement was deemed unfair I assume it would go before the ECJ
I baked and decorated my EU flag cake today. It was a bit of a struggle to keep it together because I took it out of the oven too soon and so it started to collapse slightly... that will be the UK bit trying to break away I guess. Anyway, I gave it a bit more time in the oven and it all came together in the end. Certainly a far better result for me than the referendum was. I'm about to tuck in now.
Ignoring the result of the first oven removal and having another oven removal to get the answer you prefer eh?
Members trade the things they don't care about for those that they do.
Given that we have voted Leave, whoever was doing the trading on our behalf clearly failed to convince the UK public that they had done a competent job in this respect.
I agree about that.
It's a lack of interest, I guess. People don't much like the EU and have even less interest in it, so they misunderstand what it was doing, leading to the various false assumptions behind Brexit. What we are seeing now is those assumptions unwinding.
The failure to keep UK in the EU is down to a complete failure by the likes of Junckers and others to listen to the demands for change to what they see as their precious project and legacy and the irony for Juncker's is that he was in charge when the UK resigned and that will be his legacy. David Cameron was right when he voted against him.
If they had moved to moderate free movement to free movement subject to confirmed employment I do not think we would have left
Personally I don't think it would make much difference. But I suppose there was only 2% in it, so who knows? People had all sorts of reasons for voting Leave. Opinion polls show they did believe those assumptions - that the EU needs us more than we need them (all those cars to sell!); that Brexit would allow us to do more trade with the rest of the world; that Brexit puts us in control. To the extent those assumptions are proving false and they now believe things are going to be worse after Brexit, they don't regret their decision. It's a rationalisation of a decision that probably wasn't that rational in the first place. And I don't mean that in a disparaging way. The EU didn't feel right to them. This is a betting site that appeals to people interested in outcomes, obviously. But there's a truth in feelings as well, which maybe people here don't really respect.
A lucky escape indeed. It was worth flouting election law to return David Cameron to Number 10.
The Conservatives are not unique in that situation during that election.
Do you really think that a small-majority Ed-led government, yet alone a minority one, would have been better that what we have now? If so, and putting your party preference to one side, on what basis?
If you are tempted to talk about the EU referendum, that was inevitable. And the later it as left, the more sure a leave victory would be (see my previous post below).
But we were spared.
I think it would have been better for sure.
An Ed led govt would be spending it's time working on issues like housing and better pay rather than having to renegotiate our entire relationship with our largest trading partner. Our universities would be mopping up the talent displaced by Trump, people would be talking about Europe as the leaders of the free world taking back over from America.
Cameron would have been axed and perhaps replaced by Theresa May. Too soon for Boris i suspect.
Not so sure the longer the wait the bigger the leave vote. I think Trump's election would have hurt leave...
I'm intrigued by the notion of how Scotland would hypothetically transition out of the UK given the way things are going with the UK/EU split.
In 2014 it was sold as referendum one day, independence 18 months later.
Contrast that to the relatively simple task of extricating the UK from the EU.
This is the wrong way round.
Creating a new state is relatively straightforward and has been done countless times before. Extricating a state, maintaining continuity, from the network of treaties that is the EU has never been done, and is an order of magnitude more complex.
... but Scotland is going to have two new relationships: one with the UK AND one with the EU.
If it happens while the UK is under the A50 process or in transition, the UK will be a vassal of the EU and they will dictate the terms: in effect the rUK will have no choice but to stay in the single market.
Brexit illustrates almost absolutely that Sindy is a task of gargantuan proportion and costs. It is a separation far more complex than Brexit.
It also proves the EU's thinking on the flow of orderly withdrawal, debt obligation, re-engagement and intruding into bilateral affairs (see Gibraltar).
God knows how little Nikki would explain this all away.
With due respect, that is just wrong. You are confusing complex with complicated. Brexit has a level of complexity that is unprecedented... for example, the number of primary parties involved (at least 33), their different, sometimes conflicting, interests that will change over time makes Brexit highly complex... Scottish independence would involve two parties. Seperating, for example, HMRC into Scottish and rUK organisation will be complicated but perfectly doable given time and resources.
So, establishing, for example, the pension entitlements of 40,000 eurocrats would be more arduous than 6m existing and God knows how many former UK public sector workers?
I would be surprised if it were easier with Sindy bearing in mind the sheer scale of the financial obligation, the differing funding capacity of the negotiating sides and the relative employment levels on both sides of the border if I am being honest.
That kind of complication would surface in cross border tax returns, employment records, national insurance contributions, personal debt reclaims etc.
Members trade the things they don't care about for those that they do.
Given that we have voted Leave, whoever was doing the trading on our behalf clearly failed to convince the UK public that they had done a competent job in this respect.
I agree about that.
It's a lack of interest, I guess. People don't much like the EU and have even less interest in it, so they misunderstand what it was doing, leading to the various false assumptions behind Brexit. What we are seeing now is those assumptions unwinding.
The failure to keep UK in the EU is down to a complete failure by the likes of Junckers and others to listen to the demands for change to what they see as their precious project and legacy and the irony for Juncker's is that he was in charge when the UK resigned and that will be his legacy. David Cameron was right when he voted against him.
If they had moved to moderate free movement to free movement subject to confirmed employment I do not think we would have left
Personally I don't think it would make much difference. But I suppose there was only 2% in it, so who knows? People had all sorts of reasons for voting Leave. Opinion polls show they did believe those assumptions - that the EU needs us more than we need them (all those cars to sell!); that Brexit would allow us to do more trade with the rest of the world; that Brexit puts us in control. To the extent those assumptions are proving false and they now believe things are going to be worse after Brexit, they don't regret their decision. It's a rationalisation of a decision that probably wasn't that rational in the first place. And I don't mean that in a disparaging way. The EU didn't feel right to them. This is a betting site that appeals to people interested in outcomes, obviously. But there's a truth in feelings as well, which maybe people here don't really respect.
Good post and I post on here as a remainer who was eurosceptic but hoped we could change it from within. Now leave has won I am fully behind our leaving the EU and probably a bit like Theresa May in so far as I now want to get on with it and get the best deal possible. However the hyperbole currently on display in the media and particularly Sky and BBC are not doing the Nation any favours. I would go as far as to say these news channels will see a big loss of interest in watching them if they continue creating their own fake news on a daily basis.
In the end neither the extreme leavers or remainers will be satisfied but it is the Prime Minister's responsibilty to achieve a settlement that satisfies the majority of sensible non political voters - I believe she will do that
Thinking of this daft row about us going to war over Gibraltar I am not sure that those who are outraged may represent the majority view.
Indeed Downing Street's states
'The Prime Minister will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, nor will it ever enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content'
Clear statement of support that is unambiguous and correct
I imagine this rather contrived row is playing pretty well for TM - she gets to be seen as standing up for Britain, taking a firm line etc...
A lucky escape indeed. It was worth flouting election law to return David Cameron to Number 10.
The Conservatives are not unique in that situation during that election.
Do you really think that a small-majority Ed-led government, yet alone a minority one, would have been better that what we have now? If so, and putting your party preference to one side, on what basis?
If you are tempted to talk about the EU referendum, that was inevitable. And the later it as left, the more sure a leave victory would be (see my previous post below).
But we were spared.
I think it would have been better for sure.
An Ed led govt would be spending it's time working on issues like housing and better pay rather than having to renegotiate our entire relationship with our largest trading partner. Our universities would be mopping up the talent displaced by Trump, people would be talking about Europe as the leaders of the free world taking back over from America.
Cameron would have been axed and perhaps replaced by Theresa May. Too soon for Boris i suspect.
Not so sure the longer the wait the bigger the leave vote. I think Trump's election would have hurt leave...
Yet the EU would still be a festering sore on the UK's body politic. UKIP would be doing much better in the polls and hovering up the votes. And Labour's main problem in 2015: the incompetence of Ed and his team - as highlighted by the Ed Stone - would still be extant. Ed was very good at detecting issues: his solutions often (though not always) left a great deal to be desired.
He was not PM material, and he only shines in the presence of his predecessor and successor as Labour leader.
Much would also depend on whether Ed had a good majority, a small majority, or had been forced into some form of coalition.
Trump's election *may* have reduced leave at the moment, but the problems within the EU, and the problems people project onto it, are not being fixed now. They sure as heck would not be being fixed without a lost referendum.
As I've said all along, a referendum was inevitable.
A lucky escape indeed. It was worth flouting election law to return David Cameron to Number 10.
The Conservatives are not unique in that situation during that election.
Do you really think that a small-majority Ed-led government, yet alone a minority one, would have been better that what we have now? If so, and putting your party preference to one side, on what basis?
If you are tempted to talk about the EU referendum, that was inevitable. And the later it as left, the more sure a leave victory would be (see my previous post below).
But we were spared.
Quite so. Imagine a 5-10 year long Labour-SNP Government post GE2015, during which any vote on the EU was denied, and, perhaps even, other initiatives such as a European Army were enthusiastically pursued, as the eurozone federated, and issues in the UK like free movement continued to fester.
I can't see an Ed Miliband type Government do anything other than ignore such issues.
Eventually, a centre-right coalition with a pro-Brexit Tory leader would have taken power (it wouldn't have won otherwise as it'd have to scoop the votes from UKIP) but we'd be even more divided and, it's possible, that the break-up of the UK would have been assured due to a rise of English nationalism.
Michael Howard reminding everyone he is a swivel-eyed lunatic. And all because the EU has pointed out Gibraltar is a matter for the Spanish and the UK to deal with, and that as an EU member state Spain gets to say whether the Brexit deal will apply to Gibraltar.
As the Brexit 'March' and continuing attempts to challenge Brexit showed, the real headbangers are those who want to frustrate or overturn It in spite of the will of the people.
A lucky escape indeed. It was worth flouting election law to return David Cameron to Number 10.
The Conservatives are not unique in that situation during that election.
Do you really think that a small-majority Ed-led government, yet alone a minority one, would have been better that what we have now? If so, and putting your party preference to one side, on what basis?
If you are tempted to talk about the EU referendum, that was inevitable. And the later it as left, the more sure a leave victory would be (see my previous post below).
But we were spared.
I think it would have been better for sure.
An Ed led govt would be spending it's time working on issues like housing and better pay rather than having to renegotiate our entire relationship with our largest trading partner. Our universities would be mopping up the talent displaced by Trump, people would be talking about Europe as the leaders of the free world taking back over from America.
Cameron would have been axed and perhaps replaced by Theresa May. Too soon for Boris i suspect.
Not so sure the longer the wait the bigger the leave vote. I think Trump's election would have hurt leave...
There is a case to be made that Trump only became President because of the Leave victory, it was the Brexit vote which led the Trump campaign to focus so heavily on traditionally Democratic but white working class Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania each of which he won by a small margin. Without Trump winning those states Hillary would have narrowly won the Electoral College and the Presidency
Michael Howard reminding everyone he is a swivel-eyed lunatic. And all because the EU has pointed out Gibraltar is a matter for the Spanish and the UK to deal with, and that as an EU member state Spain gets to say whether the Brexit deal will apply to Gibraltar.
As the Brexit 'March' and continuing attempts to challenge Brexit showed, the real headbangers are those who want to frustrate or overturn It in spite of the will of the people.
And, God, they do themselves no favours by their continuing descent into infantility and name-calling. Michael Howard is an astute and talented mainstream politician, not a swivel-eyed lunatic. Cameron did in substance say that brexit raised the risk of WWIII, and denying it in the face of written and video evidence is like a very small child with chocolate all over its face denying it has been at the easter eggs. And so on. It is a wonder that one pram can furnish such an inexhaustible stream of toys.
50 Labour losses seems a bit on the low side, as does their share of the vote holding at 29% compared to 4 years ago.
If UKIP do tank badly, that flatters all other parties. Plus your local Labour councillor probably isn't Corbyn. Plus Labour still has a decent ground operation. I can see them holding up okay in the circumstances (nowhere near where they need to be, but given the dire position).
Their real test is mayoral. West Mids would be a big coup for Blues.
A lucky escape indeed. It was worth flouting election law to return David Cameron to Number 10.
The Conservatives are not unique in that situation during that election.
Do you really think that a small-majority Ed-led government, yet alone a minority one, would have been better that what we have now? If so, and putting your party preference to one side, on what basis?
If you are tempted to talk about the EU referendum, that was inevitable. And the later it as left, the more sure a leave victory would be (see my previous post below).
But we were spared.
I think it would have been better for sure.
An Ed led govt would be spending it's time working on issues like housing and better pay rather than having to renegotiate our entire relationship with our largest trading partner. Our universities would be mopping up the talent displaced by Trump, people would be talking about Europe as the leaders of the free world taking back over from America.
Cameron would have been axed and perhaps replaced by Theresa May. Too soon for Boris i suspect.
Not so sure the longer the wait the bigger the leave vote. I think Trump's election would have hurt leave...
Except Labour's GE2015 manifesto was a confused muddle, cobbled together at the last minute, heavy on economic fantasy, and proposed by a team that lacked credibility.
50 Labour losses seems a bit on the low side, as does their share of the vote holding at 29% compared to 4 years ago.
If UKIP do tank badly, that flatters all other parties. Plus your local Labour councillor probably isn't Corbyn. Plus Labour still has a decent ground operation. I can see them holding up okay in the circumstances (nowhere near where they need to be, but given the dire position).
Their real test is mayoral. West Mids would be a big coup for Blues.
I've done a Labour defence list for the local elections and it would only take a small swing for the party to lose more than 50 seats. I take your point about UKIP though.
UK gets ever more dire. Telegraph now speculating on who will win the war Britain's Navy is 'far weaker' than it was during the Falklands but could still 'cripple' Spain
In the unlikely event of a Spanish invasion of Gibraltar that is a possible scenario
Michael Howard reminding everyone he is a swivel-eyed lunatic. And all because the EU has pointed out Gibraltar is a matter for the Spanish and the UK to deal with, and that as an EU member state Spain gets to say whether the Brexit deal will apply to Gibraltar.
As the Brexit 'March' and continuing attempts to challenge Brexit showed, the real headbangers are those who want to frustrate or overturn It in spite of the will of the people.
And, God, they do themselves no favours by their continuing descent into infantility and name-calling. Michael Howard is an astute and talented mainstream politician, not a swivel-eyed lunatic. Cameron did in substance say that brexit raised the risk of WWIII, and denying it in the face of written and video evidence is like a very small child with chocolate all over its face denying it has been at the easter eggs. And so on. It is a wonder that one pram can furnish such an inexhaustible stream of toys.
There are clearly some Remainers on here who are so diehard in the very unlikely event that Spain invaded Gibraltar and the UK sent a taskforce to defend it, they would be waving the Spanish flag with gusto and hoping the taskforce was beaten so we could crawl back to the EU with our tails between our legs!
Michael Howard reminding everyone he is a swivel-eyed lunatic. And all because the EU has pointed out Gibraltar is a matter for the Spanish and the UK to deal with, and that as an EU member state Spain gets to say whether the Brexit deal will apply to Gibraltar.
As the Brexit 'March' and continuing attempts to challenge Brexit showed, the real headbangers are those who want to frustrate or overturn It in spite of the will of the people.
And, God, they do themselves no favours by their continuing descent into infantility and name-calling. Michael Howard is an astute and talented mainstream politician, not a swivel-eyed lunatic. Cameron did in substance say that brexit raised the risk of WWIII, and denying it in the face of written and video evidence is like a very small child with chocolate all over its face denying it has been at the easter eggs. And so on. It is a wonder that one pram can furnish such an inexhaustible stream of toys.
There are clearly some Remainers on here who are so diehard in the very unlikely event that Spain invaded Gibraltar and the UK sent a taskforce to defend it, they would be waving the Spanish flag with gusto and hoping the taskforce was beaten so we could crawl back to the EU with our tails between our legs!
Correct. And some have the audacity to call Brexiteers loons.
I can't really see the substantive issue with what Howard said. If British territory is invaded, of course we would defend it - it's one of the few justified reasons there is for attacking another country.
UK gets ever more dire. Telegraph now speculating on who will win the war Britain's Navy is 'far weaker' than it was during the Falklands but could still 'cripple' Spain
In the unlikely event of a Spanish invasion of Gibraltar that is a possible scenario
The RN couldn't even get close to crippling a big town in Spain.
They'd run out of shells and missiles in a week. They looked great in the Falklands because the territory and the enemy was so sparse.
I'm not sure we'd want to Nuke Spain if they stole Gibraltar, but that would certainly be our only plausible military option. Diplomacy otherwise - deploy the Boris!
I can't really see the substantive issue with what Howard said. If British territory is invaded, of course we would defend it - it's one of the few justified reasons there is for attacking another country.
Andrew Neil should have asked Howard if he was in favour of a preemptive strike on Madrid?
Michael Howard reminding everyone he is a swivel-eyed lunatic. And all because the EU has pointed out Gibraltar is a matter for the Spanish and the UK to deal with, and that as an EU member state Spain gets to say whether the Brexit deal will apply to Gibraltar.
As the Brexit 'March' and continuing attempts to challenge Brexit showed, the real headbangers are those who want to frustrate or overturn It in spite of the will of the people.
And, God, they do themselves no favours by their continuing descent into infantility and name-calling. Michael Howard is an astute and talented mainstream politician, not a swivel-eyed lunatic. Cameron did in substance say that brexit raised the risk of WWIII, and denying it in the face of written and video evidence is like a very small child with chocolate all over its face denying it has been at the easter eggs. And so on. It is a wonder that one pram can furnish such an inexhaustible stream of toys.
There are clearly some Remainers on here who are so diehard in the very unlikely event that Argentina invaded the Malvinas Falklands and the UK sent a taskforce to defend it, they would be waving the Argentine flag with gusto and hoping the taskforce was beaten so we could crawl back to the EU with our tails between our legs!
I can't really see the substantive issue with what Howard said. If British territory is invaded, of course we would defend it - it's one of the few justified reasons there is for attacking another country.
Senior politicians shouldn't go around sabre rattling about twisted hypotheticals like that. It's just Putinesque propaganda.
Comments
Conspiracy theorists are sh*ts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-39194035
JICIPM!!!!
Everything.
Britain expresses 'regret' after egg is thrown at Saudi general
Activists in London attempted a citizen's arrest and threw an egg at the general in protest at Saudi military action in Yemen.
Watching this interview with Ed this morning, I realise what a lucky escape we had:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39472446
Yes we'll be fine, but we won't be in control.
Will be gutted if they win now.
It also proves the EU's thinking on the flow of orderly withdrawal, debt obligation, re-engagement and intruding into bilateral affairs (see Gibraltar).
God knows how little Nikki would explain this all away.
I would use stronger language but this is a family site.
They have immense faith in the concept of the great demon WTO.
https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/03/pizzagate-dc-shooter-pleads-guilty-to-weapons-related-charges/
Lucky no-one was killed. And as in the nature of the screwed-up nature of conspiracy theorists, some people still pretend to believe (or more worryingly, really do believe) that the above case was a false-flag operation, and there really is a child abuse ring operating out of the pizza joint ...
The Spaniards should be eternally grateful to us!
Is there anything more minor than a minor shareholder?
They may be delusional and frequently unpleasant but at least they're not actually evil.
https://vimeo.com/83530381
Must be so hard to have lost a child and then be attacked for making it up.
Indeed Downing Street's states
'The Prime Minister will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, nor will it ever enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content'
Clear statement of support that is unambiguous and correct
Not even pretending to be a poll.
It's a lack of interest, I guess. People don't much like the EU and have even less interest in it, so they misunderstand what it was doing, leading to the various false assumptions behind Brexit. What we are seeing now is those assumptions unwinding.
If they had moved to moderate free movement to free movement subject to confirmed employment I do not think we would have left
The economics have been stellar so far and the early negotiation soundings point to a constructive arrangement.
We have two years now to parallel plan for WTO if need be.
Do you really think that a small-majority Ed-led government, yet alone a minority one, would have been better that what we have now? If so, and putting your party preference to one side, on what basis?
If you are tempted to talk about the EU referendum, that was inevitable. And the later it as left, the more sure a leave victory would be (see my previous post below).
But we were spared.
We really don't want to get into a MAD situation. That's why I still think a quick, short and sharp Brexit's the best option.
An Ed led govt would be spending it's time working on issues like housing and better pay rather than having to renegotiate our entire relationship with our largest trading partner. Our universities would be mopping up the talent displaced by Trump, people would be talking about Europe as the leaders of the free world taking back over from America.
Cameron would have been axed and perhaps replaced by Theresa May. Too soon for Boris i suspect.
Not so sure the longer the wait the bigger the leave vote. I think Trump's election would have hurt leave...
I would be surprised if it were easier with Sindy bearing in mind the sheer scale of the financial obligation, the differing funding capacity of the negotiating sides and the relative employment levels on both sides of the border if I am being honest.
That kind of complication would surface in cross border tax returns, employment records, national insurance contributions, personal debt reclaims etc.
In the end neither the extreme leavers or remainers will be satisfied but it is the Prime Minister's responsibilty to achieve a settlement that satisfies the majority of sensible non political voters - I believe she will do that
He was not PM material, and he only shines in the presence of his predecessor and successor as Labour leader.
Much would also depend on whether Ed had a good majority, a small majority, or had been forced into some form of coalition.
Trump's election *may* have reduced leave at the moment, but the problems within the EU, and the problems people project onto it, are not being fixed now. They sure as heck would not be being fixed without a lost referendum.
As I've said all along, a referendum was inevitable.
I can't see an Ed Miliband type Government do anything other than ignore such issues.
Eventually, a centre-right coalition with a pro-Brexit Tory leader would have taken power (it wouldn't have won otherwise as it'd have to scoop the votes from UKIP) but we'd be even more divided and, it's possible, that the break-up of the UK would have been assured due to a rise of English nationalism.
The first oven removal was more akin to trying to count the votes before close of poll though - or maybe it was just that my oven is a bit unreliable.
Their real test is mayoral. West Mids would be a big coup for Blues.
Voters sniffed it out.
However, regardless of the politics of my cake, it's always the taste that matters. Cinnamon and grape, by the way. I'm happy with it.
They'd run out of shells and missiles in a week. They looked great in the Falklands because the territory and the enemy was so sparse.
I'm not sure we'd want to Nuke Spain if they stole Gibraltar, but that would certainly be our only plausible military option. Diplomacy otherwise - deploy the Boris!
https://twitter.com/PollingDigest/status/848615666534023168