Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
A little bit of Jingoism never did anyone any harm, or did it?
I expect PB Leavers to be just as sympathetic to bellicose posturing during the French assembly elections, the German elections and the Spring '18 Italian elections.
Brexit by timetable...
Such as Macron threatening to tear up the Calais agreement, or Merkel claiming the UK has 'illusions', you mean?
I don't think tearing up the Calais agreement is a threat. The French are totally serious about passing the problem into us.
Could that mean that Dave was right (again) about shanty towns i deepest Kent?
No. UK Border control is useless, they'll disperse.
Leaders can do different things at different times. TMay is in the middle of an election. Has she never spoken up for a good thing? Of course she has. Has Merkel ever made a political attack? I bet she has (though from what I understand german politics is generally more cordial and collegiate, so I can believe she has not been as hot blooded)
Very true. The breadth of the discussion with Martin Selmayr today also highlighted how parochial our concerns are in comparison. 'Global Britain' is abdicating from the world stage.
Does equal reporting require that May would have her own one-on-one interview as well?
A better analogy might be the seven dwarfs having a debate with Snow White and the Evil Queen missing. (Allocate the last two roles to May and Corbyn according to your own prejudices)
My suspicion with all Banks moving people abroad is redundancies under another name...
The simple fact is that most banks are trying to reduce numbers anyway they can and forcing unwanted moves on bankers is a very cheap way to get people to resign....
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
Verhofstad only the other day was being pretty unpleasant . I have no link but I recall it.
He is an MEP. He is not a national leader.
IIRC May referred to EU politicians and officials.
It's not just been Labour since 1923, since the seat was created in 1885 it has never gone Conservative. Before it was Labour it was Liberal.
The Tories only failed here by 56 votes in 1987.
A failure during one of the biggest Tory landslides in the modern era is still a failure. If the Tories take it then it would imply a landslide bigger than 87
It's not just been Labour since 1923, since the seat was created in 1885 it has never gone Conservative. Before it was Labour it was Liberal.
The Tories only failed here by 56 votes in 1987.
Wasn't that because it was a stronghold of the DUM and the Labour candidate was an unabashed admirer of Arthur Scargill? Circumstances that were perhaps a little unusual.
It's not just been Labour since 1923, since the seat was created in 1885 it has never gone Conservative. Before it was Labour it was Liberal.
The Tories only failed here by 56 votes in 1987.
One of those curious seats which are not blessed with massive majorities and so not technically 'safe', but which have solidly remained with one party over such a long period that they seem like they should be safe, I suppose. Like Copeland.
Until the 1979 election the Labour majority was never less than 15000 in the post war period.
Out of curiosity, I took a look at several German papers to see how they how they reported Theresa May's speech. Completely factually so far. My eye was caught by the BTL comments. Not a single one was impressed by May. The consensus is that she is looking for foreign scapegoats to blame for the inevitable bad consequences of her Brexit project.
The people who comment BTL in Germany and France are generally as mad as their equivalents in British papers or websites, like the Mail or Guardian or politicalbetting.com. They are querulous and elderly with too much time on their hands.
Truer words rarely spoken. Odd that anyone would ascribe great weight to btl commenting anywhere. Mad as hatters, the lot of us.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
Verhofstad only the other day was being pretty unpleasant . I have no link but I recall it.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
A little bit of Jingoism never did anyone any harm, or did it?
I expect PB Leavers to be just as sympathetic to bellicose posturing during the French assembly elections, the German elections and the Spring '18 Italian elections.
Brexit by timetable...
Such as Macron threatening to tear up the Calais agreement, or Merkel claiming the UK has 'illusions', you mean?
I don't think tearing up the Calais agreement is a threat. The French are totally serious about passing the problem into us.
Could that mean that Dave was right (again) about shanty towns i deepest Kent?
No. UK Border control is useless, they'll disperse.
Ok. So that was why the Leavers scoffed. Apropos of nothing...which Minister would have been responsible for said useless Border Control over the last 5 or 6 years?
It's not just been Labour since 1923, since the seat was created in 1885 it has never gone Conservative. Before it was Labour it was Liberal.
The Tories only failed here by 56 votes in 1987.
Wasn't that because it was a stronghold of the DUM and the Labour candidate was an unabashed admirer of Arthur Scargill? Circumstances that were perhaps a little unusual.
Well the MP who managed to win it then is there to this day, so obviously they got over it.
Theresa May has caused a storm from those who are Europhiles on here.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
My very first comment in this thread was how exactly does your remainer supporting Tory change their vote to... This shores up the UKIP to Tory vote and may even get a fair few former kippers out to the polling station voting blue - traditional tories have no where else to go....
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
A little bit of Jingoism never did anyone any harm, or did it?
I expect PB Leavers to be just as sympathetic to bellicose posturing during the French assembly elections, the German elections and the Spring '18 Italian elections.
Brexit by timetable...
Such as Macron threatening to tear up the Calais agreement, or Merkel claiming the UK has 'illusions', you mean?
I don't think tearing up the Calais agreement is a threat. The French are totally serious about passing the problem into us.
Could that mean that Dave was right (again) about shanty towns i deepest Kent?
Obviously not: the shanty towns around Calais were only there because people were waiting/trying to get across, of course.
If the route is opened for them to get in, then exactly what happens depends on how securely our side of the border is policed (anybody who manages to get past the guards will presumably try to disappear into the shadow economy,) and what the Government decides to do with those who are either caught, or who claim asylum immediately upon arrival.
There are various options, none of them cheap - but I expect that the Government will look for various means to resist putting up with claimants who have obviously passed through multiple safe third countries on their way here.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
It's not remotely statesmanlike.
It reminds people of Thatcher and not in a good way. The downside from her point of view is that it'll galvanise a progressive alliance against her. I don't think wrapping yourself in the flag is in keeping with to days zeitgeist. Certainly not with Remainers or young people.
Hmm. Dunno. The "Queen of little england" thing should be enough to get her >45% of the vote.
She's not even trying to win remainers or young people. She's calculated we don't matter.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
I have not heard Juncker deny the remarks attributed to him either. Or do you approve of the EU interfering in member's domestic politics?
I am struggling to see any evidence of the EU interfering in the UK election.
It's not just been Labour since 1923, since the seat was created in 1885 it has never gone Conservative. Before it was Labour it was Liberal.
The Tories only failed here by 56 votes in 1987.
Wasn't that because it was a stronghold of the DUM and the Labour candidate was an unabashed admirer of Arthur Scargill? Circumstances that were perhaps a little unusual.
Well the MP who managed to win it then is there to this day, so obviously they got over it.
A Labour MP who got over the miners' strike?
How did this singularly curious event happen?
More seriously, I think the devastation of the Nottinghamshire coalfields in the early 90s probably had something to do with the change of heart by voters. The Crown Farm colliery in Mansfield was closed in 1988 and infilled/demolished in 1989 - I think I'm right in saying that was part of a wider pattern of closures across Nottinghamshire that was not anticipated even as late as 1987.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
Verhofstad only the other day was being pretty unpleasant . I have no link but I recall it.
It's like having a wedding without the bride and groom...
More like having a wedding without the very elderly grandparents.
Not really because the Prime Minister and the possible Prime-Minister in waiting (no laughing at the back) are... As Brucie would say... "The stars of the show..."
It's not just been Labour since 1923, since the seat was created in 1885 it has never gone Conservative. Before it was Labour it was Liberal.
The Tories only failed here by 56 votes in 1987.
Wasn't that because it was a stronghold of the DUM and the Labour candidate was an unabashed admirer of Arthur Scargill? Circumstances that were perhaps a little unusual.
Partly that. There was a DUM supported candidate who polled 1500 votes and a SDP candidate received 11500. The seat has been drifting away from Labour since 1979 when the majority dropped to 11000 - and fell to a mere 2000 in 1983.
Technical question; would spending on a generic 'vote X' advert today count towards general election or local election expenditure?
The short campaign spending period for the GE starts today or when your candidate declares or is nominated, if later. I expect the Mansfield candidate has yet to do either.
So, this is effectively a 'free hit' not counting for either the GE or the locals? It seems to me that there is scope for a bit of confusion on this, not least because the expenses issues from the 2015 election have still not been conclusively resolved.
The national campaign spending period for this GE starts retrospectively in June 2016. But then the national limit isn't really a limit, being so high. The important limit is the local one, which won't have started in the case of the GE in the Mansfield constituency. You're right that the Tories may have to declare the spending against the Nottingham county elections, spread across all the wards covered by the local paper, but then I expect there isn't a lot of other Tory campaign spending going on there so the cost per ward will be well under the limit, which will be in the region of £1500 per ward.
It's not just been Labour since 1923, since the seat was created in 1885 it has never gone Conservative. Before it was Labour it was Liberal.
The Tories only failed here by 56 votes in 1987.
Wasn't that because it was a stronghold of the DUM and the Labour candidate was an unabashed admirer of Arthur Scargill? Circumstances that were perhaps a little unusual.
Partly that. There was a DUM supported candidate who polled 1500 votes and a SDP candidate received 11500. The seat has been drifting away from Labour since 1979 when the majority dropped to 11000 - and fell to a mere 2000 in 1983.
So part of a wider trend as well.
But then, that's true of many of these seats. How about Gower, of all places?
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
Read the thread
There are any number of comments suggesting she will win a huge majority
To be fair Scott you must agree she is formidable and maybe demonstrates why Osborne lasted less than five minutes. You do not mess with her and she has a long memory
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
I have not heard Juncker deny the remarks attributed to him either. Or do you approve of the EU interfering in member's domestic politics?
I am struggling to see any evidence of the EU interfering in the UK election.
Theresa May has caused a storm from those who are Europhiles on here.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
My very first comment in this thread was how exactly does your remainer supporting Tory change their vote to... This shores up the UKIP to Tory vote and may even get a fair few former kippers out to the polling station voting blue - traditional tories have no where else to go....
Precisely we're shafted. Can't vote Corbyn obviously, Farron is pointless. I'll vote May but purely for negative reasons.
Theresa May has caused a storm from those who are Europhiles on here.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
My very first comment in this thread was how exactly does your remainer supporting Tory change their vote to... This shores up the UKIP to Tory vote and may even get a fair few former kippers out to the polling station voting blue - traditional tories have no where else to go....
Depends on the notion that all the Conservative backers who voted to stay in the EU were mad-keen enthusiasts. I would guess that the large majority were unenthusiastic pragmatists who are already reconciled to the outcome of the vote, and that any really disappointed Europhiles amongst the congregation have already gone over to the Liberal Democrats.
One should never make the mistake of over-estimating the amount of genuine enthusiasm there is for the EU in this country.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
Read the thread
There are any number of comments suggesting she will win a huge majority
To be fair Scott you must agree she is formidable and maybe demonstrates why Osborne lasted less than five minutes. You do not mess with her and she has a long memory
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
I have not heard Juncker deny the remarks attributed to him either. Or do you approve of the EU interfering in member's domestic politics?
I am struggling to see any evidence of the EU interfering in the UK election.
"the prime minister is now asking the British people how they would like their full English Brexit served."
"I have little doubt many on the continent see this election as again motivated by the internal machinations of the Tory party."
"I hope this election will lead to an honest debate about the bitter realities of Brexit.!
He's an MEP, not the EU!! When Nigel Farage actively campaigned for Geert Wilders was that the UK interfering in the Dutch election? Of course not.
Although I have no doubt the resulting non-Wilders Dutch government were extremely grateful for Farage's input. Just think, without him there was a small risk Wilders might have won!
So I'm right - it's nothing to worry about if Montie is moaning.
For a while Tim Montgomerie was on alternate days tweeting that Britain needed to charm the EU and tweeting that the EU was a dysfunctional organisation that we were well out of. He didn't seem to see the tension between these two lines of tweets.
Tim Montgomerie criticises every Tory leader from any (and every) angle he can.
It's his way of expressing his frustration he's not at the centre of things, and he's oblivious to how his behaviour keeps it so.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
I have not heard Juncker deny the remarks attributed to him either. Or do you approve of the EU interfering in member's domestic politics?
I am struggling to see any evidence of the EU interfering in the UK election.
It's not just been Labour since 1923, since the seat was created in 1885 it has never gone Conservative. Before it was Labour it was Liberal.
The Tories only failed here by 56 votes in 1987.
Wasn't that because it was a stronghold of the DUM and the Labour candidate was an unabashed admirer of Arthur Scargill? Circumstances that were perhaps a little unusual.
Partly that. There was a DUM supported candidate who polled 1500 votes and a SDP candidate received 11500. The seat has been drifting away from Labour since 1979 when the majority dropped to 11000 - and fell to a mere 2000 in 1983.
So part of a wider trend as well.
But then, that's true of many of these seats. How about Gower, of all places?
Gower has shifted massively to the Tories over recent decades but significant boundary changes have also helped them there.Labour would still hold the seat on the basis of 1970s/80s boundaries - though by nothing like the massive margins of earlier years.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
Read the thread
There are any number of comments suggesting she will win a huge majority
To be fair Scott you must agree she is formidable and maybe demonstrates why Osborne lasted less than five minutes. You do not mess with her and she has a long memory
Do you have your name and address on the soles of your shoes? Just in case.
Out of curiosity, I took a look at several German papers to see how they how they reported Theresa May's speech. Completely factually so far. My eye was caught by the BTL comments. Not a single one was impressed by May. The consensus is that she is looking for foreign scapegoats to blame for the inevitable bad consequences of her Brexit project.
The people who comment BTL in Germany and France are generally as mad as their equivalents in British papers or websites, like the Mail or Guardian or politicalbetting.com. They are querulous and elderly with too much time on their hands.
True. But remarkably little deviance in German news sites from the line that May is resorting to blaming foreigners for the bad things coming out of Brexit. Commentators on sites here have strongly fixed but different positions. An observation FWIW.
The Irish already unimpressed with the EU and Juncker
Fine Gael MEP Brian Hayes has warned that efforts by the EU to increase the bill presented to Britain for leaving the union could “wreck the Brexit negotiations before they start”.
“These reports of a €100 billion bill are utterly unhelpful. Putting such an over-inflated bill on the British could leave talks at a standstill from the start,” he said
And:
In a meeting with the British prime minister Theresa May last week - details of which have been leaked - president of the European Commission Jean Claude Juncker is said to have told the British that if they refuse to pay the bill, there will be no trade deal post-Brexit. That would be a disaster for Ireland, meaning high tariffs for many Irish goods entering the UK market
The Irish are running a mini-block with the Dutch & Danes, promoting a no fuss, get it sorted and do a liberal trade deal approach. All three governments appear to be co-ordinating a position.
The rational EU nations within the European Council.
I suspect much will hinge on Germany as the dealbreaker, however.
So I'm right - it's nothing to worry about if Montie is moaning.
For a while Tim Montgomerie was on alternate days tweeting that Britain needed to charm the EU and tweeting that the EU was a dysfunctional organisation that we were well out of. He didn't seem to see the tension between these two lines of tweets.
Tim Montgomerie criticises every Tory leader from any (and every) angle he can.
It's his way of expressing his frustration he's not at the centre of things, and he's oblivious to how his behaviour keeps it so.
Are you doubting the political nous of the man who was Iain Duncan Smith's Chief of Staff when IDS was party leader?
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
I have not heard Juncker deny the remarks attributed to him either. Or do you approve of the EU interfering in member's domestic politics?
I am struggling to see any evidence of the EU interfering in the UK election.
"the prime minister is now asking the British people how they would like their full English Brexit served."
"I have little doubt many on the continent see this election as again motivated by the internal machinations of the Tory party."
"I hope this election will lead to an honest debate about the bitter realities of Brexit.!
He's an MEP, not the EU!! When Nigel Farage actively campaigned for Geert Wilders was that the UK interfering in the Dutch election? Of course not.
Although I have no doubt the resulting non-Wilders Dutch government were extremely grateful for Farage's input. Just think, without him there was a small risk Wilders might have won!
I have a bit of a soft spot for Verhofstadt - I feel like I know exactly where he stands and what he wants at all times. I may not like it, but I know it.
Again, why? Why do you think the EU leaders are such big fools that they will kill the chance of a good deal because TMay went overboard when spinning during an election?
Mr Meeks' contention that it doesn't matter as the EU's position, which we cannot change now, is already set, is much more plausible.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
I have not heard Juncker deny the remarks attributed to him either. Or do you approve of the EU interfering in member's domestic politics?
I am struggling to see any evidence of the EU interfering in the UK election.
Out of curiosity, I took a look at several German papers to see how they how they reported Theresa May's speech. Completely factually so far. My eye was caught by the BTL comments. Not a single one was impressed by May. The consensus is that she is looking for foreign scapegoats to blame for the inevitable bad consequences of her Brexit project.
The people who comment BTL in Germany and France are generally as mad as their equivalents in British papers or websites, like the Mail or Guardian or politicalbetting.com. They are querulous and elderly with too much time on their hands.
True. But remarkably little deviance in German news sites from the line that May is resorting to blaming foreigners for the bad things coming out of Brexit. Commentators on sites here have strongly fixed but different positions. An observation FWIW.
Lack of deviation in view doesn't mean they are right of course.
It's not just been Labour since 1923, since the seat was created in 1885 it has never gone Conservative. Before it was Labour it was Liberal.
The Tories only failed here by 56 votes in 1987.
Wasn't that because it was a stronghold of the DUM and the Labour candidate was an unabashed admirer of Arthur Scargill? Circumstances that were perhaps a little unusual.
Partly that. There was a DUM supported candidate who polled 1500 votes and a SDP candidate received 11500. The seat has been drifting away from Labour since 1979 when the majority dropped to 11000 - and fell to a mere 2000 in 1983.
So part of a wider trend as well.
But then, that's true of many of these seats. How about Gower, of all places?
Some may recall Gower was my long-shot tip last time around. And that was before the, ahem, formidable Tory Battle Bus swept all before it....
Theresa May has caused a storm from those who are Europhiles on here.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
My very first comment in this thread was how exactly does your remainer supporting Tory change their vote to... This shores up the UKIP to Tory vote and may even get a fair few former kippers out to the polling station voting blue - traditional tories have no where else to go....
Depends on the notion that all the Conservative backers who voted to stay in the EU were mad-keen enthusiasts. I would guess that the large majority were unenthusiastic pragmatists who are already reconciled to the outcome of the vote, and that any really disappointed Europhiles amongst the congregation have already gone over to the Liberal Democrats.
One should never make the mistake of over-estimating the amount of genuine enthusiasm there is for the EU in this country.
Why do you think the EU leaders are such big fools that they will kill the chance of a good deal because TMay went overboard when spinning during an election?
Mr Meeks' contention that it doesn't matter as the EU's position, which we cannot change now, is already set, is much more plausible.
I agree with Mr Meeks that the EU position is not likely to change as a result of this, but this is additional evidence (were it needed) that TMay doesn't want a good deal, indeed any deal.
What they want is a terrible deal for Britain and a great deal for the EU, which a weak prime minister will agree to, in desperation. A strong PM will tell them to go take a hike. That's their worry.
Yes Sean. That is their job. Because a terrible deal for Britain, no matter what the economic damage to the EU, is a great deal for the wider project of a federal Europe. You doubt that, look at Greece or Ireland, sacrificed to scare the politicians dealing with the genuinely menacing issues in Spain and Italy into mending their ways.
Similarly, I expect our leaders, whoever they be, to get the best deal for us even if that is not ultimately the one most beneficial to the EU. As we are leaving, that is not our concern now.
The problem is I do not believe either is possible, which is why I expect no deal at all - the worst of all worlds for both of us. And that is why, even though my good word for the European Commission would be 'scum', I ultimately voted Remain.
I have a bit of a soft spot for Verhofstadt - I feel like I know exactly where he stands and what he wants at all times. I may not like it, but I know it.
Ditto. He's smart, he's a Federalist, he's quite honest, he's also (apparently) an Anglophile. But he is the enemy. Now.
Well I would prefer the term opponent, but quite so - he will fight for his corner, we will fight for ours, and hopefully we can all walk away with something, but it is what it is.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
Verhofstad only the other day was being pretty unpleasant . I have no link but I recall it.
He is an MEP. He is not a national leader.
He is the EP Brexit Co-ordinator.
He is a very senior figure in EU politics. And he wrote a 1500 word thinkpiece in a British paper to tell us how our British election was a despicable power-grab by a British party blah blah blah
Can you imagine a senior British politician writing in, say, a French or Spanish newspaper, lecturing the French or Spanish on how their election was wrong and revolting and their democracy was pathetic blah blah
No, it is impossible. It's fucking outrageous. Butt out, you Belgian fuckface. TMay is right. They are interfering. They don't want her strengthened, it is clearly easier for them to negotiate with a weak PM with a majority of 10 rather than 100.
What they want is a terrible deal for Britain and a great deal for the EU, which a weak prime minister will agree to, in desperation. A strong PM will tell them to go take a hike. That's their worry.
If you believe he believes writing a 1,500 word opinion piece in the Guardian will have any affect on the outcome of the election I am not sure what your problem is. Clearly, his judgement is appalling and he will have no ability to cause any damage to the UK.
The leader of the British party that won most votes at the last Euro elections has openly campaigned for candidates in EU27 countries who wish to destabilise the EU, has written articles for those countries' newspapers and has appeared on their TV stations urging voters to choose one candidate over another. Last month Theresa May met Emmanuel Macron in London, but no other candidate in the French election.
Why do you think the EU leaders are such big fools that they will kill the chance of a good deal because TMay went overboard when spinning during an election?
Mr Meeks' contention that it doesn't matter as the EU's position, which we cannot change now, is already set, is much more plausible.
I agree with Mr Meeks that the EU position is not likely to change as a result of this, but this is additional evidence (were it needed) that TMay doesn't want a good deal, indeed any deal.
Where we differ is I don't think they want one either (some do, like the Irish, but not them as a whole).
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
I have not heard Juncker deny the remarks attributed to him either. Or do you approve of the EU interfering in member's domestic politics?
I am struggling to see any evidence of the EU interfering in the UK election.
"the prime minister is now asking the British people how they would like their full English Brexit served."
"I have little doubt many on the continent see this election as again motivated by the internal machinations of the Tory party."
"I hope this election will lead to an honest debate about the bitter realities of Brexit.!
He's an MEP, not the EU!! When Nigel Farage actively campaigned for Geert Wilders was that the UK interfering in the Dutch election? Of course not.
Although I have no doubt the resulting non-Wilders Dutch government were extremely grateful for Farage's input. Just think, without him there was a small risk Wilders might have won!
Like Hillary!!
I don't, being sane.
More seriously, outside diehard Republicans and their outraged opposite numbers, how many people in the US knew or cared about Farage's input? I'm guessing it had minimal impact in say, Wisconsin.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
I have not heard Juncker deny the remarks attributed to him either. Or do you approve of the EU interfering in member's domestic politics?
I am struggling to see any evidence of the EU interfering in the UK election.
From the article.... "What has been billed as a “Brexit election” is an attempted power grab by the Tories, who wish to take advantage of a Labour party in seeming disarray to secure another five years of power before the reality of Brexit bites."
If you believe he believes writing a 1,500 word opinion piece in the Guardian will have any affect on the outcome of the election I am not sure what your problem is. Clearly, his judgement is appalling and he will have no ability to cause any damage to the UK.
That's a bit harsh, isn't it? I mean, there are some quite smart people write for the Grauniad. It may also be the home of the Moonbat, Jones, Her Pollyness and the Jezaster's press secretary, but it doesn't just by itself confer utter uselessness or lack of judgment on its writers.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
I have not heard Juncker deny the remarks attributed to him either. Or do you approve of the EU interfering in member's domestic politics?
I am struggling to see any evidence of the EU interfering in the UK election.
From the article.... "What has been billed as a “Brexit election” is an attempted power grab by the Tories, who wish to take advantage of a Labour party in seeming disarray to secure another five years of power before the reality of Brexit bites."
That about sums it up for me.
It's an election, not a power grab, and Labour voted for it, so they can hardly complain about being taken advantage of.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
I have not heard Juncker deny the remarks attributed to him either. Or do you approve of the EU interfering in member's domestic politics?
I am struggling to see any evidence of the EU interfering in the UK election.
"the prime minister is now asking the British people how they would like their full English Brexit served."
"I have little doubt many on the continent see this election as again motivated by the internal machinations of the Tory party."
"I hope this election will lead to an honest debate about the bitter realities of Brexit.!
He's an MEP, not the EU!! When Nigel Farage actively campaigned for Geert Wilders was that the UK interfering in the Dutch election? Of course not.
Although I have no doubt the resulting non-Wilders Dutch government were extremely grateful for Farage's input. Just think, without him there was a small risk Wilders might have won!
Like Hillary!!
I don't, being sane.
More seriously, outside diehard Republicans and their outraged opposite numbers, how many people in the US knew or cared about Farage's input? I'm guessing it had minimal impact in say, Wisconsin.
I don't know, but it seems to me to be quite incorrect to imply association w Farage leads to defeat, in light of Brexit and Trump
Theresa May has caused a storm from those who are Europhiles on here.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
It won't have helped her with the Remainers as they are educated enough to see through all this play-acting. The Leavers on the other hand ....
I agree - there should be a law disallowing thickos from the right to vote. We could call it the meritocracy.
What makes you think such a law would not disenfranchise you? I find intellectual snobbery repulsive, but if you want to indulge in it you run the risk of finding there are people higher up the food chain than you.
Theresa May has caused a storm from those who are Europhiles on here.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
It won't have helped her with the Remainers as they are educated enough to see through all this play-acting. The Leavers on the other hand ....
That is the type of arrogant comment that has caused the leave vote
The Leavers voted Leave before the analysis was done that showed that, on average, they were older, poorer and less educated than the Remainers. The analysis didn't cause them to vote Leave. They didn't know just how poor, old and poorly educated they were at the time of the vote. Or perhaps they did and it pissed them off.
EDIT: To be clear - I'm not blaming them. They can't help being old, poor and less educated.
I have a bit of a soft spot for Verhofstadt - I feel like I know exactly where he stands and what he wants at all times. I may not like it, but I know it.
Ditto. He's smart, he's a Federalist, he's quite honest, he's also (apparently) an Anglophile. But he is the enemy. Now.
Indeed and we need to weed out all the traitors consorting with the enemy. Those promoting foreign travel instead of a wet weekend in Bognor and worse still those who spread the written word abroad.
Theresa May has caused a storm from those who are Europhiles on here.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
It won't have helped her with the Remainers as they are educated enough to see through all this play-acting. The Leavers on the other hand ....
I agree - there should be a law disallowing thickos from the right to vote. We could call it the meritocracy.
What makes you think such a law would not disenfranchise you? I find intellectual snobbery repulsive, but if you want to indulge in it you run the risk of finding there are people higher up the food chain than you.
It should be based on smugness levels,because then I think I'm safe from disenfranchisement.
Theresa May has caused a storm from those who are Europhiles on here.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
It won't have helped her with the Remainers as they are educated enough to see through all this play-acting. The Leavers on the other hand ....
That is the type of arrogant comment that has caused the leave vote
The Leavers voted Leave before the analysis was done that showed that, on average, they were older, poorer and less educated than the Remainers. The analysis didn't cause them to vote Leave. They didn't know just how poor, old and poorly educated they were at the time of the vote. Or perhaps they did and it pissed them off.
Theresa May has caused a storm from those who are Europhiles on here.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
It won't have helped her with the Remainers as they are educated enough to see through all this play-acting. The Leavers on the other hand ....
I agree - there should be a law disallowing thickos from the right to vote. We could call it the meritocracy.
What makes you think such a law would not disenfranchise you? I find intellectual snobbery repulsive, but if you want to indulge in it you run the risk of finding there are people higher up the food chain than you.
I was just wondering how helpful it would be in an overall pro-European country like Holland.
Theresa May has caused a storm from those who are Europhiles on here.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
My very first comment in this thread was how exactly does your remainer supporting Tory change their vote to... This shores up the UKIP to Tory vote and may even get a fair few former kippers out to the polling station voting blue - traditional tories have no where else to go....
Precisely we're shafted. Can't vote Corbyn obviously, Farron is pointless.
I have been saying something along these lines for a while now. Corbyn, to me, is completely unsuitable for the job he holds never mind that of PM and the LDs have no chance of doing anything significant. Farron seems to be a total lightweight and largely ignored
I will not vote Tory or Labour. If the LDs had a substantial leader I would vote for them, but Farron? For the first time in my adult life, I feel disenfranchised. If there was a "None of the above" option I would be putting my X in it.
Try as I might, I'm struggling to see what the downside* of Theresa May's rather vigorous rhetoric is supposed to be. Are people seriously suggesting that the EU27 are such snowflakes that a rebuttal of their own 'Brexit must be a failure' and 'on another galaxy' lines will trigger a reaction which means they slink off and don't do a deal?
* Of course, I can see the downside for the opposition parties.
The downside is that it makes it politically harder for EU leaders to offer up the concessions they will need to make in order for there to be a Brexit deal that works for the UK.
That downside became fact with the leak from Juncker yesterday....
I have not heard any national leader among the EU27 use the confrontational language May did today.
I have not heard Juncker deny the remarks attributed to him either. Or do you approve of the EU interfering in member's domestic politics?
I am struggling to see any evidence of the EU interfering in the UK election.
From the article.... "What has been billed as a “Brexit election” is an attempted power grab by the Tories, who wish to take advantage of a Labour party in seeming disarray to secure another five years of power before the reality of Brexit bites."
That about sums it up for me.
I'm hoping that May will be our equivalent of General Pinochet.
Theresa May has caused a storm from those who are Europhiles on here.
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
It won't have helped her with the Remainers as they are educated enough to see through all this play-acting. The Leavers on the other hand ....
That is the type of arrogant comment that has caused the leave vote
The Leavers voted Leave before the analysis was done that showed that, on average, they were older, poorer and less educated than the Remainers. The analysis didn't cause them to vote Leave. They didn't know just how poor, old and poorly educated they were at the time of the vote. Or perhaps they did and it pissed them off.
EDIT: To be clear - I'm not blaming them. They can't help being old, poor and less educated.
It must hurt to lose to people who are less wise, wealthy, and well-born than you are.
Comments
The simple fact is that most banks are trying to reduce numbers anyway they can and forcing unwanted moves on bankers is a very cheap way to get people to resign....
However, is any remainer willing to declare whether this has helped or hindered her election chances.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/22/dont-believe-theresa-may-election-wont-change-brexit
If the route is opened for them to get in, then exactly what happens depends on how securely our side of the border is policed (anybody who manages to get past the guards will presumably try to disappear into the shadow economy,) and what the Government decides to do with those who are either caught, or who claim asylum immediately upon arrival.
There are various options, none of them cheap - but I expect that the Government will look for various means to resist putting up with claimants who have obviously passed through multiple safe third countries on their way here.
There are any number of comments suggesting she will win a huge majority
"the prime minister is now asking the British people how they would like their full English Brexit served."
"I have little doubt many on the continent see this election as again motivated by the internal machinations of the Tory party."
"I hope this election will lead to an honest debate about the bitter realities of Brexit.!
How did this singularly curious event happen?
More seriously, I think the devastation of the Nottinghamshire coalfields in the early 90s probably had something to do with the change of heart by voters. The Crown Farm colliery in Mansfield was closed in 1988 and infilled/demolished in 1989 - I think I'm right in saying that was part of a wider pattern of closures across Nottinghamshire that was not anticipated even as late as 1987.
They should invite another MP as a stand in for their party.
Ken Clarke and John Woodcock.
But then, that's true of many of these seats. How about Gower, of all places?
One should never make the mistake of over-estimating the amount of genuine enthusiasm there is for the EU in this country.
It's his way of expressing his frustration he's not at the centre of things, and he's oblivious to how his behaviour keeps it so.
I suspect much will hinge on Germany as the dealbreaker, however.
http://www.newstalk.com/Farage-hits-out-at-contemptible-EU-for-united-Ireland-deal
Mr Meeks' contention that it doesn't matter as the EU's position, which we cannot change now, is already set, is much more plausible.
Now I believe May really wants that landslide and she wants it to be for her not anti Corbyn.
Similarly, I expect our leaders, whoever they be, to get the best deal for us even if that is not ultimately the one most beneficial to the EU. As we are leaving, that is not our concern now.
The problem is I do not believe either is possible, which is why I expect no deal at all - the worst of all worlds for both of us. And that is why, even though my good word for the European Commission would be 'scum', I ultimately voted Remain.
The leader of the British party that won most votes at the last Euro elections has openly campaigned for candidates in EU27 countries who wish to destabilise the EU, has written articles for those countries' newspapers and has appeared on their TV stations urging voters to choose one candidate over another. Last month Theresa May met Emmanuel Macron in London, but no other candidate in the French election.
More seriously, outside diehard Republicans and their outraged opposite numbers, how many people in the US knew or cared about Farage's input? I'm guessing it had minimal impact in say, Wisconsin.
That about sums it up for me.
EDIT: To be clear - I'm not blaming them. They can't help being old, poor and less educated.
Burn their books and the authors .....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4bgVmmHBs8