Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Centre right=Countryside Alliance? Oh dear. Poor centre-right.
And yes they did look like a mob, and had the same counterproductive effect on MPs as other mobs.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Countryside March. Over 1/3 of the estimated rural population turned up. They had people appointed to stay behind and pick up litter
I went on that march. Not out of a great passion for fox-hunting (I am ambivalent) but sheer curiosity.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men. Dudes in waistcoats blowing hunting horns.
They put the obese urban Brits to shame. And I speak as an urban Brit.
Now that I live in proper countryside alliance territory (the local hunt's hounds came straight through my garden last year) I can report that the local citizenry don't fit your description at all.
Everyone I knew who went on the march lived, and indeed had their highlights done, in London. Many of them were looking forward to inheriting a bit of the countryside but living there full time wasn't top of their to-do list.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Centre right=Countryside Alliance? Oh dear. Poor centre-right.
And yes they did look like a mob, and had the same counterproductive effect on MPs as other mobs.
Is that why the government ordered the police to make an example of them?
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
The media and political betting bubble didn't take into account that the other 65 million people were just getting on with their lives as normal and - brutally frank but fair - could not give much of a fuck about, May's reaction to this or that incident, Brexit, or any other politics this beautifully sunny weekend just gone.
I was surprised that Survation only had Lab 3% ahead after the media barrage May has faced over the last few days.
Maybe this suggests that wherever people are on the political spectrum they vote on tangible matters - whether the economy, jobs, taxes, public spending, tuition fees, crime, Brexit etc etc.
But they don't vote on whether or not the PM bursts into tears etc.
If the above is correct then I think that's good news all round.
Blair was famous for his acting, almost bursting into tears after Diana died etc. And after that everyone said they didn't want a PM who did that sort of thing. But now May is criticised for not doing all that kind of stuff.
Seems ironic - I guess the media just want a story. But the Survation poll suggests the public doesn't actually have a great desire for this kind of stuff.
It's pathetic. I don't want an emoting mourner-in-chief. I want a commander-in-chief. Guess I'm old-fashioned.
And the competitive mourning. The Daily Mirror calling for a day of national mourning for heaven's sake. It's go to stop.
Labour’s shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, whose Hackney North and Stoke Newington constituency lies close to the scene, called for police to review security at mosques.
She tweeted: “Terror attack outside #FinsburyPark mosque. Police must urgently review security for all mosques #StandTogether.”
How come, after the Manchester and London Islamist atrocities, all the MPs said 'carry on as normal, or they've won'?
I've not heard any of the same platitudes being repeated today. If that chap today has to look over his shoulder on his way to the Mosque, then can I show the same trepidation when I see a Muslim? Just in case? Or would that make me an 'Islamophobe'?
And what's the equivalent 'irrational fear' of the majority population? Kafirphobia? Right.
What a fucking mess we have made for ourselves in this country.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
The media and political betting bubble didn't take into account that the other 65 million people were just getting on with their lives as normal and - brutally frank but fair - could not give much of a fuck about, May's reaction to this or that incident, Brexit, or any other politics this beautifully sunny weekend just gone.
I was surprised that Survation only had Lab 3% ahead after the media barrage May has faced over the last few days.
Maybe this suggests that wherever people are on the political spectrum they vote on tangible matters - whether the economy, jobs, taxes, public spending, tuition fees, crime, Brexit etc etc.
But they don't vote on whether or not the PM bursts into tears etc.
If the above is correct then I think that's good news all round.
Blair was famous for his acting, almost bursting into tears after Diana died etc. And after that everyone said they didn't want a PM who did that sort of thing. But now May is criticised for not doing all that kind of stuff.
Seems ironic - I guess the media just want a story. But the Survation poll suggests the public doesn't actually have a great desire for this kind of stuff.
It's pathetic. I don't want an emoting mourner-in-chief. I want a commander-in-chief. Guess I'm old-fashioned.
And the competitive mourning. The Daily Mirror calling for a day of national mourning for heaven's sake. It's go to stop.
People outside the big cities don't agree with all this stuff, but the media is totally dominated by people with those types of views, even the Daily Mail it seems.
Intersting what a Muslim said today on the new about looking over his shoulder every time he went to the Mosque. I reckon statistically he has more chance of being killed by another Muslim than he has of any other demographic.
It would be such a disaster if they left. I mean, if Britain's Muslim community decided, en masse, to up sticks and go back to wherever-istan, we would lose, inter alia, and this is just off the top of my head:
1. The constant threat of being blown up 2. Or run over with a truck 3. Or knifed to death in a frenzied attack 4. Mass racialised gang rape 5. Sharia law in our cities 6. The burqa 7. The niqab 8. Most Female Genital Mutilation 9. Cousin marriages 10. Honour Killings 11. Forced marriages 12. The need for armed police with submachine guns everywhere 13. More racialised gang rape, plus general street level misogyny aimed at "white whores" 14. The reintroduction of Blasphemy Law, meaning the End of the Enlightenment 15. Some interesting Bangladeshi versions of Indian cuisine
Like I said. Catastrophe. How would we cope?
Even the architects of multiculturalism admitted they had got it hopelessly wrong. Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester, Trevor Phillips etc
As your list shows, I just can't see how Islamic immigration can be seen as a net positive for England in anyway. A crazy experiment that's impossible to reverse
Muslim immigration into Europe has been an unmitigated disaster. A total, howling catastrophe for every western nation that has experienced it.
In the defence of the 1960s' multicultural idealists, they weren't to know that Islam, as a faith, was about to pathologise into some weird medieval death cult. At the time, Islam looked quite benign, the Tehran and Kabul of hotpants and discos...
Since then we have realised our terrible mistake for what it is. Which makes Merkel's decision on Syrian refugees even more insane.
We are where we are. If Islam continues its tragic descent into psychosis, I see no future but outright civil strife. Because in the end the native populations will fight back, with equal madness and barbarity, as we see in Finsbury Park today.
latest revelations on fire safety are not looking at all good for the conservatives.
Extremely partial reporting there by the BBC.
If you listened to WaO today on Radio 4 you would have heard Martha Carney interviewing Nick Ross of Crimewatch fame.
The reason he was on is because since 2004 he has been involved with a campaign run by Fire Chiefs to get sprinklers fitted in all social housing.
He points out that successive ministers with responsibility for this have, since 2004, chosen not to follow the recommendations. This includes Sadiq Khan back in 2009. He also points out however that this is because the explicit advice they were getting from their own civil servants was that this would not be an effective way to deal with the problem.
His was a far more balanced response than the BBC hatchet job which tries to make it seem like this has only been an issue since Labour lost power.
Quite possibly. But all reporting is biased in some way. In politics it is the headline story and meme that counts. I think the 2014 'bonfire of the building regulations' may not turn out to be the wisest move, in retrospect.
Fire safety is very difficult to regulate for, like all regulation where there are public safety impacts. There are always lots of urgent ideas about how to improve safety but they in turn impose costs and these need to be weighed against the risks.
Intersting what a Muslim said today on the new about looking over his shoulder every time he went to the Mosque. I reckon statistically he has more chance of being killed by another Muslim than he has of any other demographic.
It would be such a disaster if they left. I mean, if Britain's Muslim community decided, en masse, to up sticks and go back to wherever-istan, we would lose, inter alia, and this is just off the top of my head:
1. The constant threat of being blown up 2. Or run over with a truck 3. Or knifed to death in a frenzied attack 4. Mass racialised gang rape 5. Sharia law in our cities 6. The burqa 7. The niqab 8. Most Female Genital Mutilation 9. Cousin marriages 10. Honour Killings 11. Forced marriages 12. The need for armed police with submachine guns everywhere 13. More racialised gang rape, plus general street level misogyny aimed at "white whores" 14. The reintroduction of Blasphemy Law, meaning the End of the Enlightenment 15. Some interesting Bangladeshi versions of Indian cuisine
Like I said. Catastrophe. How would we cope?
Even the architects of multiculturalism admitted they had got it hopelessly wrong. Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester, Trevor Phillips etc
As your list shows, I just can't see how Islamic immigration can be seen as a net positive for England in anyway. A crazy experiment that's impossible to reverse
Muslim immigration into Europe has been an unmitigated disaster. A total, howling catastrophe for every western nation that has experienced it.
In the defence of the 1960s' multicultural idealists, they weren't to know that Islam, as a faith, was about to pathologise into some weird medieval death cult. At the time, Islam looked quite benign, the Tehran and Kabul of hotpants and discos...
Since then we have realised our terrible mistake for what it is. Which makes Merkel's decision on Syrian refugees even more insane.
We are where we are. If Islam continues its tragic descent into psychosis, I see no future but outright civil strife. Because in the end the native populations will fight back, with equal madness and barbarity, as we see in Finsbury Park today.
Fight back? You make it sound like the scumbag who did this is some sort of freedom fighter.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Countryside March. Over 1/3 of the estimated rural population turned up. They had people appointed to stay behind and pick up litter
I went on that march. Not out of a great passion for fox-hunting (I am ambivalent) but sheer curiosity.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men. Dudes in waistcoats blowing hunting horns.
They put the obese urban Brits to shame. And I speak as an urban Brit.
Now that I live in proper countryside alliance territory (the local hunt's hounds came straight through my garden last year) I can report that the local citizenry don't fit your description at all.
Everyone I knew who went on the march lived, and indeed had their highlights done, in London. Many of them were looking forward to inheriting a bit of the countryside but living there full time wasn't top of their to-do list.
I can confirm that here in the countryside, fox hunting was a major issue and mover of votes.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Centre right=Countryside Alliance? Oh dear. Poor centre-right.
And yes they did look like a mob, and had the same counterproductive effect on MPs as other mobs.
Yeh right Nick. Even the Guardian report on it was complimentary.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
The media and political betting bubble didn't take into account that the other 65 million people were just getting on with their lives as normal and - brutally frank but fair - could not give much of a fuck about, May's reaction to this or that incident, Brexit, or any other politics this beautifully sunny weekend just gone.
I was surprised that Survation only had Lab 3% ahead after the media barrage May has faced over the last few days.
Maybe this suggests that wherever people are on the political spectrum they vote on tangible matters - whether the economy, jobs, taxes, public spending, tuition fees, crime, Brexit etc etc.
But they don't vote on whether or not the PM bursts into tears etc.
If the above is correct then I think that's good news all round.
Blair was famous for his acting, almost bursting into tears after Diana died etc. And after that everyone said they didn't want a PM who did that sort of thing. But now May is criticised for not doing all that kind of stuff.
Seems ironic - I guess the media just want a story. But the Survation poll suggests the public doesn't actually have a great desire for this kind of stuff.
It's pathetic. I don't want an emoting mourner-in-chief. I want a commander-in-chief. Guess I'm old-fashioned.
And the competitive mourning. The Daily Mirror calling for a day of national mourning for heaven's sake. It's go to stop.
People outside the big cities don't agree with all this stuff, but the media is totally dominated by people with those types of views, even the Daily Mail it seems.
What on earth makes you think it's an urban thing? The national Diana grief certainly didn't seem that way.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Countryside March. Over 1/3 of the estimated rural population turned up. They had people appointed to stay behind and pick up litter
I went on that march. Not out of a great passion for fox-hunting (I am ambivalent) but sheer curiosity.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men. Dudes in waistcoats blowing hunting horns.
They put the obese urban Brits to shame. And I speak as an urban Brit.
Now that I live in proper countryside alliance territory (the local hunt's hounds came straight through my garden last year) I can report that the local citizenry don't fit your description at all.
Everyone I knew who went on the march lived, and indeed had their highlights done, in London. Many of them were looking forward to inheriting a bit of the countryside but living there full time wasn't top of their to-do list.
I can confirm that here in the countryside, fox hunting was a major issue and mover of votes.
84% against, and the 16% in favour will never vote Labour in a million years.
Electorally daft, and I know people in favour and against out here in semi-rural Derbyshire.
Reporting (across the press, I think): "UK caves in to EU demand to agree divorce bill before trade talks "
Reality: Remember all that utter nonsense about not being able to even start talking about trade deals until after we had left completely?
Still, it might be the UK press being rather helpful: giving an excuse to the EU27 to claim a 'victory' when actually they have bowed to reality in this non-zero-sum game is quite useful.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Countryside March. Over 1/3 of the estimated rural population turned up. They had people appointed to stay behind and pick up litter
I went on that march. Not out of a great passion for fox-hunting (I am ambivalent) but sheer curiosity.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men. Dudes in waistcoats blowing hunting horns.
They put the obese urban Brits to shame. And I speak as an urban Brit.
Now that I live in proper countryside alliance territory (the local hunt's hounds came straight through my garden last year) I can report that the local citizenry don't fit your description at all.
Everyone I knew who went on the march lived, and indeed had their highlights done, in London. Many of them were looking forward to inheriting a bit of the countryside but living there full time wasn't top of their to-do list.
I can confirm that here in the countryside, fox hunting was a major issue and mover of votes.
84% against, and the 16% in favour will never vote Labour in a million years.
Electorally daft, and I know people in favour and against out here in semi-rural Derbyshire.
There is 0.000000001% who would vote Labour - and she's Vauxhall's MP. Although no one really knows why she votes Labour. Monster Raving Loony Party would be more fitting.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Countryside March. Over 1/3 of the estimated rural population turned up. They had people appointed to stay behind and pick up litter
I went on that march. Not out of a great passion for fox-hunting (I am ambivalent) but sheer curiosity.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men. Dudes in waistcoats blowing hunting horns.
They put the obese urban Brits to shame. And I speak as an urban Brit.
Now that I live in proper countryside alliance territory (the local hunt's hounds came straight through my garden last year) I can report that the local citizenry don't fit your description at all.
Everyone I knew who went on the march lived, and indeed had their highlights done, in London. Many of them were looking forward to inheriting a bit of the countryside but living there full time wasn't top of their to-do list.
I can confirm that here in the countryside, fox hunting was a major issue and mover of votes.
84% against, and the 16% in favour will never vote Labour in a million years.
Electorally daft, and I know people in favour and against out here in semi-rural Derbyshire.
Indeed. There are some supporters up here, too. However, the general opinion was the fewer red-coated and even redder faced buffoons up for the weekend from London, the better. They can't even afford the fishing or shooting fees (which provide the actual jobs).
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Countryside March. Over 1/3 of the estimated rural population turned up. They had people appointed to stay behind and pick up litter
I went on that march. Not out of a great passion for fox-hunting (I am ambivalent) but sheer curiosity.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men. Dudes in waistcoats blowing hunting horns.
They put the obese urban Brits to shame. And I speak as an urban Brit.
Now that I live in proper countryside alliance territory (the local hunt's hounds came straight through my garden last year) I can report that the local citizenry don't fit your description at all.
Everyone I knew who went on the march lived, and indeed had their highlights done, in London. Many of them were looking forward to inheriting a bit of the countryside but living there full time wasn't top of their to-do list.
I can confirm that here in the countryside, fox hunting was a major issue and mover of votes.
Here it's probably 25pc strongly pro, 25pc strongly anti, 50pc ambivalent (I'm in the last group). Many of the antis aren't ideologically motivated, they're just fed up of the harm caused to their pets, livestock or gardens.
My point wasn't as sophisticated as an argument about the location of hunting supporters, more about the residential choices of SeanT's hot blond(e)s.
There is 0.000000001% who would vote Labour - and she's Vauxhall's MP. Although no one really knows why she votes Labour. Monster Raving Loony Party would be more fitting.
Well yes there are always a few outside the main Venn diagram blocks, apart from anything else though does this parliament have the time to revisit foxhunting with Brexit underway.
It net cost the Tories votes, the daft thing is the hunts are able to work round the rules anyway - further banning legislation would be a waste of parliamentary time, as would changing it to something more relaxed. It is a particularly British medium hard fudge at the moment, which leaves everyone sort of happy..
Intersting what a Muslim said today on the new about looking over his shoulder every time he went to the Mosque. I reckon statistically he has more chance of being killed by another Muslim than he has of any other demographic.
It would be such a disaster if they left. I mean, if Britain's Muslim community decided, en masse, to up sticks and go back to wherever-istan, we would lose, inter alia, and this is just off the top of my head:
1. The constant threat of being blown up 2. Or run over with a truck 3. Or knifed to death in a frenzied attack 4. Mass racialised gang rape 5. Sharia law in our cities 6. The burqa 7. The niqab 8. Most Female Genital Mutilation 9. Cousin marriages 10. Honour Killings 11. Forced marriages 12. The need for armed police with submachine guns everywhere 13. More racialised gang rape, plus general street level misogyny aimed at "white whores" 14. The reintroduction of Blasphemy Law, meaning the End of the Enlightenment 15. Some interesting Bangladeshi versions of Indian cuisine
Like I said. Catastrophe. How would we cope?
Even the architects of multiculturalism admitted they had got it hopelessly wrong. Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester, Trevor Phillips etc
As your list shows, I just can't see how Islamic immigration can be seen as a net positive for England in anyway. A crazy experiment that's impossible to reverse
Muslim immigration into Europe has been an unmitigated disaster. A total, howling catastrophe for every western nation that has experienced it.
In the defence of the 1960s' multicultural idealists, they weren't to know that Islam, as a faith, was about to pathologise into some weird medieval death cult. At the time, Islam looked quite benign, the Tehran and Kabul of hotpants and discos...
Since then we have realised our terrible mistake for what it is. Which makes Merkel's decision on Syrian refugees even more insane.
We are where we are. If Islam continues its tragic descent into psychosis, I see no future but outright civil strife. Because in the end the native populations will fight back, with equal madness and barbarity, as we see in Finsbury Park today.
On the daily politics earlier, the representative of the Muslim council said Douglas Murray was comparable to Anjem Choudray in terms of hate preaching
Intersting what a Muslim said today on the new about looking over his shoulder every time he went to the Mosque. I reckon statistically he has more chance of being killed by another Muslim than he has of any other demographic.
Even the architects of multiculturalism admitted they had got it hopelessly wrong. Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester, Trevor Phillips etc
As your list shows, I just can't see how Islamic immigration can be seen as a net positive for England in anyway. A crazy experiment that's impossible to reverse
Muslim immigration into Europe has been an unmitigated disaster. A total, howling catastrophe for every western nation that has experienced it.
In the defence of the 1960s' multicultural idealists, they weren't to know that Islam, as a faith, was about to pathologise into some weird medieval death cult. At the time, Islam looked quite benign, the Tehran and Kabul of hotpants and discos...
Since then we have realised our terrible mistake for what it is. Which makes Merkel's decision on Syrian refugees even more insane.
We are where we are. If Islam continues its tragic descent into psychosis, I see no future but outright civil strife. Because in the end the native populations will fight back, with equal madness and barbarity, as we see in Finsbury Park today.
Fight back? You make it sound like the scumbag who did this is some sort of freedom fighter.
The guy who did Finsbury Park was a mad, revolting psycho and mass murderer.
But I've no doubt he "felt" he was fighting back. And many many others probably had similar feelings of buried anger, but did not act upon them. Enough to make this horrible, unless we can somehow square the circle of Islam-in-the-West
Islam is like an endorphine to the Third World brain, and it is one of the main reasons why it has not flourished in advanced countries. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend any organised religion has covered itself with glory over the centuries - but - I believe Islam to be uniquely uncompromising in its anti-Western ideology.
So why the gibbering and mostly unquestioning appeasement from the Left? It cannot just be about votes at general elections.....can it??
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Countryside March. Over 1/3 of the estimated rural population turned up. They had people appointed to stay behind and pick up litter
I went on that march. Not out of a great passion for fox-hunting (I am ambivalent) but sheer curiosity.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men. Dudes in waistcoats blowing hunting horns.
They put the obese urban Brits to shame. And I speak as an urban Brit.
Now that I live in proper countryside alliance territory (the local hunt's hounds came straight through my garden last year) I can report that the local citizenry don't fit your description at all.
Everyone I knew who went on the march lived, and indeed had their highlights done, in London. Many of them were looking forward to inheriting a bit of the countryside but living there full time wasn't top of their to-do list.
I can confirm that here in the countryside, fox hunting was a major issue and mover of votes.
84% against, and the 16% in favour will never vote Labour in a million years.
Electorally daft, and I know people in favour and against out here in semi-rural Derbyshire.
There is 0.000000001% who would vote Labour - and she's Vauxhall's MP. Although no one really knows why she votes Labour. Monster Raving Loony Party would be more fitting.
You know who the President of the Countryside Alliance is, yes?
Reporting (across the press, I think): "UK caves in to EU demand to agree divorce bill before trade talks "
Reality: Remember all that utter nonsense about not being able to even start talking about trade deals until after we had left completely?
Still, it might be the UK press being rather helpful: giving an excuse to the EU27 to claim a 'victory' when actually they have bowed to reality in this non-zero-sum game is quite useful.
The EU hasn't bowed to anything. Their published negotiating guidelines made clear that we could start talking about a trade deal once sufficient progress had been made on other issues, and from a sequencing perspective it's quite obvious that they would want us to have enough of a carrot as the clock runs down to sign up to a transitional deal on their terms.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Centre right=Countryside Alliance? Oh dear. Poor centre-right.
And yes they did look like a mob, and had the same counterproductive effect on MPs as other mobs.
Utter bollocks Nick. The universal response from the media was that it ad been a peaceful and dignified protest and they probably left the streets cleaner than they found them. I am afraid your particular animal rights bias is shining through.
Labour when you were in power were an unmitigated disaster for the countryside. As far as they were concerned there were no votes to be won so they should either ignore it or try and break any resistance to Labour doctrine. It is no wonder the party are so hated across rural Britain.
We should wait and see who white van man at Finsbury Park Mosque was. We might find this is not the start of some anti Muslim backlash terror movement.
The extreme right, certainly up to recent years had more security holes than the cliched swiss cheese. They have been growing in activism in recent years but have long had limited capability to organise and the zealotry to really put a campaign together. Your problem comes that, in the background, they have a few, and it is a few, people who have experience of how to operate.
Tories banging on about the dangers of Corbyn need to reflect on the clusterfuck they themselves have created.
They haven't. Voters have.
The Tories have called two unnecessary elections...they are paying the price comrade
One unnecessary election, and one very necessary referendum.
As you say, they are paying the price, but that doesn't make them responsible for the choices of voters.
Why couldn't we have just waited for a Grillo or Le Pen or Wilders to emerge first with the EU vote? At least then we could have seen the consequences? Why did we have to go first?
Tories banging on about the dangers of Corbyn need to reflect on the clusterfuck they themselves have created.
They haven't. Voters have.
The Tories have called two unnecessary elections...they are paying the price comrade
One unnecessary election, and one very necessary referendum.
As you say, they are paying the price, but that doesn't make them responsible for the choices of voters.
Holding the referendum was a wanton act of unmitigated idiocy. If Dave (as he rightly did) saw a Leave outcome as a disaster, he should never have held it. That he - and most of the rest of us - assumed he would win it is largely immaterial here.
The EU hasn't bowed to anything. Their published negotiating guidelines made clear that we could start talking about a trade deal once sufficient progress had been made on other issues, and from a sequencing perspective it's quite obvious that they would want us to have enough of a carrot as the clock runs down to sign up to a transitional deal on their terms.
Not so. They have completely caved in on their absurd position. Not only have they caved in de facto, they have also admitted that de jure the UK was right that Article 50 is clear on this point - something they adamantly denied a few months ago:
If it suits everyone to rewrite history and believe otherwise, that's great. Reality is what matters, and the fact is that, after a few weeks' preliminary discussions, we are now going to get into the meat of real negotiations about the post-Brexit relationship. Thank goodness.
Reporting (across the press, I think): "UK caves in to EU demand to agree divorce bill before trade talks "
Reality: Remember all that utter nonsense about not being able to even start talking about trade deals until after we had left completely?
Still, it might be the UK press being rather helpful: giving an excuse to the EU27 to claim a 'victory' when actually they have bowed to reality in this non-zero-sum game is quite useful.
The EU hasn't bowed to anything. Their published negotiating guidelines made clear that we could start talking about a trade deal once sufficient progress had been made on other issues, and from a sequencing perspective it's quite obvious that they would want us to have enough of a carrot as the clock runs down to sign up to a transitional deal on their terms.
Yes yes yes, you're right. Well done the EU. You stitched us up like a right thingy just there, sunshine. Good one.
Have a banana. A straight EU-approved one. Not bent like the ones Tim Farron secretly likes.
And just as Richard Nabavi rightly says .... it's 1-0 to you *applause* so let's crack on.
Even the architects of multiculturalism admitted they had got it hopelessly wrong. Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester, Trevor Phillips etc
As your list shows, I just can't see how Islamic immigration can be seen as a net positive for England in anyway. A crazy experiment that's impossible to reverse
Muslim immigration into Europe has been an unmitigated disaster. A total, howling catastrophe for every western nation that has experienced it.
In the defence of the 1960s' multicultural idealists, they weren't to know that Islam, as a faith, was about to pathologise into some weird medieval death cult. At the time, Islam looked quite benign, the Tehran and Kabul of hotpants and discos...
Since then we have realised our terrible mistake for what it is. Which makes Merkel's decision on Syrian refugees even more insane.
We are where we are. If Islam continues its tragic descent into psychosis, I see no future but outright civil strife. Because in the end the native populations will fight back, with equal madness and barbarity, as we see in Finsbury Park today.
On the daily politics earlier, the representative of the Muslim council said Douglas Murray was comparable to Anjem Choudray in terms of hate preaching
Douglas Murray would be liable to prosecution and imprisonment if Corbyn took power, and so would anyone who criticised Islam.
Look at these chilling and terrifying words from Ed Miliband -
In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:
"We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.
"We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country."
Now imagine Corbyn as PM. Legitimate criticism of an organised religion would be punishable by imprisonment, and probably ending an individual's chance of a career.
Tories banging on about the dangers of Corbyn need to reflect on the clusterfuck they themselves have created.
They haven't. Voters have.
The Tories have called two unnecessary elections...they are paying the price comrade
One unnecessary election, and one very necessary referendum.
As you say, they are paying the price, but that doesn't make them responsible for the choices of voters.
Holding the referendum was a wanton act of unmitigated idiocy. If Dave (as he rightly did) saw a Leave outcome as a disaster, he should never have held it. That he - and most of the rest of us - assumed he would win it is largely immaterial here.
So your attitude is just like the rest of the leftie Eurofanatics. Don't give the plebs a vote or they might vote the wrong way. It is a sickening attitude that does you no credit at all. You should be ashamed.
Intersting what a Muslim said today on the new about looking over his shoulder every time he went to the Mosque. I reckon statistically he has more chance of being killed by another Muslim than he has of any other demographic.
Even the architects of multiculturalism admitted they had got it hopelessly wrong. Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester, Trevor Phillips etc
As your list shows, I just can't see how Islamic immigration can be seen as a net positive for England in anyway. A crazy experiment that's impossible to reverse
Muslim immigration into Europe has been an unmitigated disaster. A total, howling catastrophe for every western nation that has experienced it.
In the defence of the 1960s' multicultural idealists, they weren't to know that Islam, as a faith, was about to pathologise into some weird medieval death cult. At the time, Islam looked quite benign, the Tehran and Kabul of hotpants and discos...
Since then we have realised our terrible mistake for what it is. Which makes Merkel's decision on Syrian refugees even more insane.
We are where we are. If Islam continues its tragic descent into psychosis, I see no future but outright civil strife. Because in the end the native populations will fight back, with equal madness and barbarity, as we see in Finsbury Park today.
Fight back? You make it sound like the scumbag who did this is some sort of freedom fighter.
The guy who did Finsbury Park was a mad, revolting psycho and mass murderer.
But I've no doubt he "felt" he was fighting back. And many many others probably had similar feelings of buried anger, but did not act upon them. Enough to make this horrible, unless we can somehow square the circle of Islam-in-the-West
Islam is like an endorphine to the Third World brain, and it is one of the main reasons why it has not flourished in advanced countries. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend any organised religion has covered itself with glory over the centuries - but - I believe Islam to be uniquely uncompromising in its anti-Western ideology.
I just happened to watch this clip on the BBC. It's pretty harrowing and a reminded that barbarism and crazy beliefs are not confined to one religion.
Intersting what a Muslim said today on the new about looking over his shoulder every time he went to the Mosque. I reckon statistically he has more chance of being killed by another Muslim than he has of any other demographic.
Even the architects of multiculturalism admitted they had got it hopelessly wrong. Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester, Trevor Phillips etc
As your list shows, I just can't see how Islamic immigration can be seen as a net positive for England in anyway. A crazy experiment that's impossible to reverse
Muslim immigration into Europe has been an unmitigated disaster. A total, howling catastrophe for every western nation that has experienced it.
In the defence of the 1960s' multicultural idealists, they weren't to know that Islam, as a faith, was about to pathologise into some weird medieval death cult. At the time, Islam looked quite benign, the Tehran and Kabul of hotpants and discos...
Since then we have realised our terrible mistake for what it is. Which makes Merkel's decision on Syrian refugees even more insane.
We are where we are. If Islam continues its tragic descent into psychosis, I see no future but outright civil strife. Because in the end the native populations will fight back, with equal madness and barbarity, as we see in Finsbury Park today.
Fight back? You make it sound like the scumbag who did this is some sort of freedom fighter.
The guy who did Finsbury Park was a mad, revolting psycho and mass murderer.
But I've no doubt he "felt" he was fighting back. And many many others probably had similar feelings of buried anger, but did not act upon them. Enough to make this horrible, unless we can somehow square the circle of Islam-in-the-West
Islam is like an endorphine to the Third World brain, and it is one of the main reasons why it has not flourished in advanced countries. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend any organised religion has covered itself with glory over the centuries - but - I believe Islam to be uniquely uncompromising in its anti-Western ideology.
I just happened to watch this clip on the BBC. It's pretty harrowing and a reminded that barbarism and crazy beliefs are not confined to one religion.
Tories banging on about the dangers of Corbyn need to reflect on the clusterfuck they themselves have created.
They haven't. Voters have.
The Tories have called two unnecessary elections...they are paying the price comrade
One unnecessary election, and one very necessary referendum.
As you say, they are paying the price, but that doesn't make them responsible for the choices of voters.
Holding the referendum was a wanton act of unmitigated idiocy. If Dave (as he rightly did) saw a Leave outcome as a disaster, he should never have held it. That he - and most of the rest of us - assumed he would win it is largely immaterial here.
So your attitude is just like the rest of the leftie Eurofanatics. Don't give the plebs a vote or they might vote the wrong way. It is a sickening attitude that does you no credit at all. You should be ashamed.
Nope. I've been consistent throughout my life that I don't approve of referendums, for anything. We rightly have a representative democracy and therefore should honour that model. I opposed the London mayor referendum (the government should just have imposed it a la Manchester). Why I should be expected to make an exception to this rule for Europe, I have absolutely no idea. That all said, now we have been set along this dismal path by Dave, we must be able to vote on the deal. I see no other way, now.
Holding the referendum was a wanton act of unmitigated idiocy. If Dave (as he rightly did) saw a Leave outcome as a disaster, he should never have held it. That he - and most of the rest of us - assumed he would win it is largely immaterial here.
He wasn't so arrogant as to think that he had a monopoly of wisdom on the subject, which is fair enough given that slightly over 50% of voters disagreed with him. It's called democracy.
Thing is the Countryside Alliance is, or should be, a very important pressure group. The media is exclusively City-based, as are most Civil Servants, and other influential people. Unfortunately, it has become associated with fox hunting which most people oppose. It is now drowning out the good work they do. I could get behind all their policies, and consider joining, but for the top one. It is lost. Give it up. Although game is not my meat, nor angling my chosen pastime.Here are their policies.
Against the passing of the 2004 Hunting Ban, and lobbying for its repeal. Against the closure of rural post offices. Supporting shooting and deer stalking across the British Isles, by campaigning against additional regulations and negative press coverage, Encouraging customers and supermarkets to stock food from British farms. Calling for better broadband connections for homes and small businesses in the countryside. Organising educational talks and trips to the countryside for schoolchildren. A "Game-to-Eat" campaign aiming to popularise game as a meat of choice. Fishing4Schools, an initiative aimed to help children with special educational needs by taking them angling. Falconry for schools. Supporting small rural businesses through the Countryside Alliance Awards scheme.
Intersting what a Muslim said today on the new about looking over his shoulder every time he went to the Mosque. I reckon statistically he has more chance of being killed by another Muslim than he has of any other demographic.
Even the architects of multiculturalism admitted they had got it hopelessly wrong. Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester, Trevor Phillips etc
As your list shows, I just can't see how Islamic immigration can be seen as a net positive for England in anyway. A crazy experiment that's impossible to reverse
Muslim immigration into Europe has been an unmitigated disaster. A total, howling catastrophe for every western nation that has experienced it.
In the defence of the 1960s' multicultural idealists, they weren't to know that Islam, as a faith, was about to pathologise into some weird medieval death cult. At the time, Islam looked quite benign, the Tehran and Kabul of hotpants and discos...
Since then we have realised our terrible mistake for what it is. Which makes Merkel's decision on Syrian refugees even more insane.
We are where we are. If Islam continues its tragic descent into psychosis, I see no future but outright civil strife. Because in the end the native populations will fight back, with equal madness and barbarity, as we see in Finsbury Park today.
Fight back? You make it sound like the scumbag who did this is some sort of freedom fighter.
The guy who did Finsbury Park was a mad, revolting psycho and mass murderer.
But I've no doubt he "felt" he was fighting back. And many many others probably had similar feelings of buried anger, but did not act upon them. Enough to make this horrible, unless we can somehow square the circle of Islam-in-the-West
Islam is like an endorphine to the Third World brain, and it is one of the main reasons why it has not flourished in advanced countries. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend any organised religion has covered itself with glory over the centuries - but - I believe Islam to be uniquely uncompromising in its anti-Western ideology.
I just happened to watch this clip on the BBC. It's pretty harrowing and a reminded that barbarism and crazy beliefs are not confined to one religion.
I went on that march. Not out of a great passion for fox-hunting (I am ambivalent) but sheer curiosity.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men. Dudes in waistcoats blowing hunting horns.
They put the obese urban Brits to shame. And I speak as an urban Brit.
I come from a small town in a pretty rural part of Scotland (which wasn't fox hunting country but had a couple of shoots). There was quite a lot of sympathy for the Countryside Alliance marchers there, even amongst those who weren't very supportive of fox hunting. There was a general feeling that the countryside was being treated quite badly by the government of the day, coming as it did not that long after Foot and Mouth. In my secondary school English class we had a debate on fox hunting. The class had a few farmers' kids in it but was mostly made up of those living in town. Sympathy was broadly, although not entirely, on the fox hunters' side.
Of course, fox hunting was banned separately by the Scottish Parliament but its prohibition in England and the London march still received a lot of attention up here.
I did get the sense then and for a few years afterwards that a fair chunk of the population thought the fox hunters hadn't been treated particularly fairly, to the extent that it seemed in around 2007 that if the Tories got a workable majority at the next election they would be able to get a reversal or relaxation of the ban through with fairly minimal blow-back. However, the recession, I think, finished that, along with Cameron's failure to get a majority, and by 2015 it was too late. Bigger things were on people's minds, there was much more antagonism towards the wealthy/upper classes and their frolics, and social media by this stage had become a much bigger influence on people's opinions than it was in 2010 (and those pictures of cute foxes went viral).
In any case the fox hunting ban is here for good now, regardless of the arguments against prohibition. The time when the Tories could have got repeal through without too much trouble has long since passed. It may be that the hunts now aren't actually that bothered by the ban staying in place, since they can more or less continue their activities unhindered and in peace - the only thing missing is the fox itself.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble, but I wanted to get that off my chest.
Holding the referendum was a wanton act of unmitigated idiocy. If Dave (as he rightly did) saw a Leave outcome as a disaster, he should never have held it. That he - and most of the rest of us - assumed he would win it is largely immaterial here.
He wasn't so arrogant as to think that he had a monopoly of wisdom on the subject, which is fair enough given that slightly over 50% of voters disagreed with him. It's called democracy.
You are the one attacking "the voters" for not agreeing with the Tories' preferred outcome last month. You can't have it both ways.
Reporting (across the press, I think): "UK caves in to EU demand to agree divorce bill before trade talks "
Reality: Remember all that utter nonsense about not being able to even start talking about trade deals until after we had left completely?
Still, it might be the UK press being rather helpful: giving an excuse to the EU27 to claim a 'victory' when actually they have bowed to reality in this non-zero-sum game is quite useful.
This is quite right. But the EU's caving in came some weeks ago.
Britain has a wonderful, vibrant, querulous press. Which is an asset as it encourages good government overall. But it does mean in situations like this that it is always looking to find fault.
"Douglas Murray would be liable to prosecution and imprisonment if Corbyn took power, and so would anyone who criticised Islam.
Look at these chilling and terrifying words from Ed Miliband -
In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:
"We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.
"We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country."
Now imagine Corbyn as PM. Legitimate criticism of an organised religion would be punishable by imprisonment, and probably ending an individual's chance of a career.
This is 21st century Britain."
*****
It is quite terrifying. The Left cowers before Islam - or sees it as a way to enforce Orwellian principles.
I despise both equally, the fascism of the Left, and of the Muslim world.
Well, make the most of your freedom of expression and speech while it lasts. Even the Tories have started cowering.
Holding the referendum was a wanton act of unmitigated idiocy. If Dave (as he rightly did) saw a Leave outcome as a disaster, he should never have held it. That he - and most of the rest of us - assumed he would win it is largely immaterial here.
He wasn't so arrogant as to think that he had a monopoly of wisdom on the subject, which is fair enough given that slightly over 50% of voters disagreed with him. It's called democracy.
You are the one attacking "the voters" for not agreeing with the Tories preferred outcome last month. You can't have it both ways.
Bobajob....it's not worth bothering with....as we say at home...
Tories banging on about the dangers of Corbyn need to reflect on the clusterfuck they themselves have created.
They haven't. Voters have.
The Tories have called two unnecessary elections...they are paying the price comrade
One unnecessary election, and one very necessary referendum.
As you say, they are paying the price, but that doesn't make them responsible for the choices of voters.
Holding the referendum was a wanton act of unmitigated idiocy. If Dave (as he rightly did) saw a Leave outcome as a disaster, he should never have held it. That he - and most of the rest of us - assumed he would win it is largely immaterial here.
So your attitude is just like the rest of the leftie Eurofanatics. Don't give the plebs a vote or they might vote the wrong way. It is a sickening attitude that does you no credit at all. You should be ashamed.
Nope. I've been consistent throughout my life that I don't approve of referendums, for anything. We rightly have a representative democracy and therefore should honour that model. I opposed the London mayor referendum (the government should just have imposed it a la Manchester). Why I should be expected to make an exception to this rule for Europe, I have absolutely no idea. That all said, now we have been set along this dismal path by Dave, we must be able to vote on the deal. I see no other way, now.
So you disagree with referendums except when they might be used to reverse something you oppose. Utterly shameful.
Thing is the Countryside Alliance is, or should be, a very important pressure group. The media is exclusively City-based, as are most Civil Servants, and other influential people. Unfortunately, it has become associated with fox hunting which most people oppose. It is now drowning out the good work they do. I could get behind all their policies, and consider joining, but for the top one. It is lost. Give it up. Although game is not my meat, nor angling my chosen pastime.Here are their policies.
Against the passing of the 2004 Hunting Ban, and lobbying for its repeal. Against the closure of rural post offices. Supporting shooting and deer stalking across the British Isles, by campaigning against additional regulations and negative press coverage, Encouraging customers and supermarkets to stock food from British farms. Calling for better broadband connections for homes and small businesses in the countryside. Organising educational talks and trips to the countryside for schoolchildren. A "Game-to-Eat" campaign aiming to popularise game as a meat of choice. Fishing4Schools, an initiative aimed to help children with special educational needs by taking them angling. Falconry for schools. Supporting small rural businesses through the Countryside Alliance Awards scheme.
Yep. A great set of policies except the first one. Agreed.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Centre right=Countryside Alliance? Oh dear. Poor centre-right.
And yes they did look like a mob, and had the same counterproductive effect on MPs as other mobs.
Utter bollocks Nick. The universal response from the media was that it ad been a peaceful and dignified protest and they probably left the streets cleaner than they found them. I am afraid your particular animal rights bias is shining through.
Labour when you were in power were an unmitigated disaster for the countryside. As far as they were concerned there were no votes to be won so they should either ignore it or try and break any resistance to Labour doctrine. It is no wonder the party are so hated across rural Britain.
Which is ironic, in that Blair was an MP for a rural seat! I am not disagreeing with you btw.
"Douglas Murray would be liable to prosecution and imprisonment if Corbyn took power, and so would anyone who criticised Islam.
Look at these chilling and terrifying words from Ed Miliband -
In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:
"We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.
"We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country."
Now imagine Corbyn as PM. Legitimate criticism of an organised religion would be punishable by imprisonment, and probably ending an individual's chance of a career.
This is 21st century Britain."
*****
It is quite terrifying. The Left cowers before Islam - or sees it as a way to enforce Orwellian principles.
I despise both equally, the fascism of the Left, and of the Muslim world.
Labour is worried about a supposed rise in islamophobia - has less to say about the rise of Islamism.
Tories banging on about the dangers of Corbyn need to reflect on the clusterfuck they themselves have created.
They haven't. Voters have.
The Tories have called two unnecessary elections...they are paying the price comrade
One unnecessary election, and one very necessary referendum.
As you say, they are paying the price, but that doesn't make them responsible for the choices of voters.
Holding the referendum was a wanton act of unmitigated idiocy. If Dave (as he rightly did) saw a Leave outcome as a disaster, he should never have held it. That he - and most of the rest of us - assumed he would win it is largely immaterial here.
So your attitude is just like the rest of the leftie Eurofanatics. Don't give the plebs a vote or they might vote the wrong way. It is a sickening attitude that does you no credit at all. You should be ashamed.
Nope. I've been consistent throughout my life that I don't approve of referendums, for anything. We rightly have a representative democracy and therefore should honour that model. I opposed the London mayor referendum (the government should just have imposed it a la Manchester). Why I should be expected to make an exception to this rule for Europe, I have absolutely no idea. That all said, now we have been set along this dismal path by Dave, we must be able to vote on the deal. I see no other way, now.
So you disagree with referendums except when they might be used to reverse something you oppose. Utterly shameful.
As I said, I opposed holding the referendum in the first place. As we have chosen that path, it is only right the 'plebs' as you call them can vote on the deal. But I would prefer that we avoid all plebiscites in future.
You are the one attacking "the voters" for not agreeing with the Tories' preferred outcome last month. You can't have it both ways.
I am not attacking them. I am saying that they, not the Tories, made the decision to leave the EU, and they, not the Tories, declined to give Mrs May the mandate she asked for. The consequences, good or bad, of those decisions by voters remain to be seen; some people think that the former is a Good Thing, and some people, such as yourself, think that the former is a Bad Thing and the latter is a Good Thing. It's not me that's trying to have it both ways!
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Centre right=Countryside Alliance? Oh dear. Poor centre-right.
And yes they did look like a mob, and had the same counterproductive effect on MPs as other mobs.
Utter bollocks Nick. The universal response from the media was that it ad been a peaceful and dignified protest and they probably left the streets cleaner than they found them. I am afraid your particular animal rights bias is shining through.
Labour when you were in power were an unmitigated disaster for the countryside. As far as they were concerned there were no votes to be won so they should either ignore it or try and break any resistance to Labour doctrine. It is no wonder the party are so hated across rural Britain.
I think you'll find that Brexit will cause much more damage to the rural economy than any Labour Govt could.
FWIW...the countryside is always likely to do better with a Labour Govt who always tend to overcompensate for their perceived deficiencies (as to the military)....never seems to stops them voting Tory based on tribal instinct...
But the countryside voting for Brexit...if it wasn't so painful it would be quite amusing...
We should wait and see who white van man at Finsbury Park Mosque was. We might find this is not the start of some anti Muslim backlash terror movement.
The extreme right, certainly up to recent years had more security holes than the cliched swiss cheese. They have been growing in activism in recent years but have long had limited capability to organise and the zealotry to really put a campaign together. Your problem comes that, in the background, they have a few, and it is a few, people who have experience of how to operate.
No doubt MI5 has 20,000 on a watch list... oh wait.
For the avoidance of doubt I utterly condemn what that muppet did and hope he gets the sentence he deserves.
But lets not pretend the threats are anything like equal.
There is 0.000000001% who would vote Labour - and she's Vauxhall's MP. Although no one really knows why she votes Labour. Monster Raving Loony Party would be more fitting.
Well yes there are always a few outside the main Venn diagram blocks, apart from anything else though does this parliament have the time to revisit foxhunting with Brexit underway.
It net cost the Tories votes, the daft thing is the hunts are able to work round the rules anyway - further banning legislation would be a waste of parliamentary time, as would changing it to something more relaxed. It is a particularly British medium hard fudge at the moment, which leaves everyone sort of happy..
Which makes TMay's mention of it in the manifesto even more tin-eared.
TSE told me it was a grievous error at the time, I dismissed him. Looking back, he was surely right.
Hmm. Think it only became an egregious error when combined with the dementia tax, removal of the triple lock, winter fuel allowance etc to give the impression of Tories nicking pensioners' homes while allowing their mates to hunt foxes. On its own it wouldn't have done much damage.
Any damage would have been caused at the point where Parliament voted on reversing/relaxing the ban. Social media would have exploded with images of fox cubs and red faced men in red coats riding them down.
"Douglas Murray would be liable to prosecution and imprisonment if Corbyn took power, and so would anyone who criticised Islam.
Look at these chilling and terrifying words from Ed Miliband -
In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:
"We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.
"We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country."
Now imagine Corbyn as PM. Legitimate criticism of an organised religion would be punishable by imprisonment, and probably ending an individual's chance of a career.
This is 21st century Britain."
*****
It is quite terrifying. The Left cowers before Islam - or sees it as a way to enforce Orwellian principles.
I despise both equally, the fascism of the Left, and of the Muslim world.
Labour is worried about a supposed rise in islamophobia - has less to say about the rise of Islamism.
Colour me surprised.
They won't even use that word, 'Islamist'. I genuinely believe some sections of the Left would rather see teenage girls being blown to pieces at a pop concert than offend a single Muslim. They are that demented.
To recap - I opposed BOTH polls. I would still have opposed holding the referendum had it come up Remain. Two unnecessary elections held (laughably as it transpires) for narrow party political advantage.
FWIW...the countryside is always likely to do better with a Labour Govt who always tend to overcompensate for their perceived deficiencies (as to the military)...
I am sorry, but the below is wrong on every level.
Under EU law, its budget is financed ENTIRELY by the EUs 'own resources'. The idea that the UK pays a subscription and approves EU spending is a fiction, not a legal reality. In fact, the Own Resources Directive specifies that (in addition to money the EU collects directly, e.g. duties and fines) the EU 'owns' a portion of the GDP of each state, based on a formula. Once the ORD was passed, the UK Parliament have no ability to block payments to the EU because they 'belong' to the EU as a matter of law; they are not membership payments but sequestered resources. The members states have to agree to the budget, but by agreeing to it they do not agree to fund it - they are agreeing the spending. The ORD is what sets the money available to the EU - it can be varied but once agreed it lasts forever unless changed again - it is not related to the budget period at all.
The problem is that the ORD is one of the treaties that lapses immediately at the end of the a50 period. So, legally, all that happens is that the EUs own resources are smaller after March 2019. By EU treaty and law, it is explicit that the EU that has to manage its own budget in line with its own resources.
All the comments about shares of liabilities and assets, and 'implicit' promises and undertakings from the UK are factually nonsense. The EU is not a partnership. The EU law is quite clear. David Davis knows this, and judging from the reports of today's meeting, Barnier has been told he has to justify this legally and is not happy about it. The UK owes absolutely nothing by law, not even pension obligations.
Best way to proceed? Agree that the whole exit bill will be referred to binding arbitration at the ICJ if (and only if) there is an overall Brexit agreement on trade. The EU will be totally screwed because they would have to refuse this offer and then they would look totally ridiculous.
I think there are two precedents to bear in mind. If there is an international partnership, such as a law firm, accountant, or the like, and an individual country entity goes it alone, then it does not get to walk entirely away from the liabilities and obligations of the organisation of which it was a member. ...
The second precedent is that the UK has - by signing the five year budget from 2015 to 2020 - implicitly agreed to those spending plans. The EU case, which has some merit, is that our signature on those budgets puts us on the hook whether we are members or not. The counter-argument (which is acknowledged in the EU Brexit briefing pack) is that such payments contain the expectation of benefits. I.e., if we were to continue to pay into the budget for that period, we would expect benefits from that.
[snip] All the comments about shares of liabilities and assets, and 'implicit' promises and undertakings from the UK are factually nonsense. The EU is not a partnership. The EU law is quite clear. David Davis knows this, and judging from the reports of today's meeting, Barnier has been told he has to justify this legally and is not happy about it. The UK owes absolutely nothing by law, not even pension obligations.
Best way to proceed? Agree that the whole exit bill will be referred to binding arbitration at the ICJ if (and only if) there is an overall Brexit agreement on trade. The EU will be totally screwed because they would have to refuse this offer and then they would look totally ridiculous.
I am pretty sure that you are right on the legal position (the Lords' Brexit committee report goes into it in some detail, and came up with a similar conclusion). At the very least, it's far from clear we would owe a bean in the event of a crash-out Brexit. It's not even clear that there is a court they could sue us in.
However, in terms of tactics, it's the other way round, surely? We should discuss voluntary payments of some kind to help them with their budgetary crisis in return for a smooth Brexit and an on-going trade deal. If they don't want to play ball, our position should be that we pay zero.
archer101au is completely correct and rcs1000 is mistaken.
rcs1000 talks about precedent but it is a misuse of the word as no precedent is quoted. The logic of the EU's position is that is a net beneficiary of the budget (e.g. Hungary) were to leave they would be owed monies. That is clearly absurd. The logic of the EU's position would be like the UK saying that Scotland has to fund Trident for the next 40 years, even if it goes independent, because it was part of the legal structure which planned it.
The European Investment Bank is very different to the EU. The EIB is an organisation in which member states have shares and the UK is a significant shareholder.
Overall, the UK is owed money. We may not get it (almost certainly not because we want an FTA and transitional arrangements) but that is the position.
archer101au is completely correct and rcs1000 is mistaken.
rcs1000 talks about precedent but it is a misuse of the word as no precedent is quoted. The logic of the EU's position is that is a net beneficiary of the budget (e.g. Hungary) were to leave they would be owed monies. That is clearly absurd. The logic of the EU's position would be like the UK saying that Scotland has to fund Trident for the next 40 years, even if it goes independent, because it was part of the legal structure which planned it.
The European Investment Bank is very different to the EU. The EIB is an organisation in which member states have shares and the UK is a significant shareholder.
Overall, the UK is owed money. We may not get it (almost certainly not because we want an FTA and transitional arrangements) but that is the position.
My use of the word 'precedent' was perhaps a mistake.
But I think you misrepresent my position. If a net recipient were to leave, it would still be on the hook for its share (based on gross contributions) of pensions, and potentially for other EU spending in the period of the budget it had signed off on.
As I said, all this is debatable. All I am putting across is the arguments put forward by the EU and the UK. The crux of my point is that when a part of partnership or a corporate entity "breaks off" from the parent, it does not leave all obligations behind, something that has been proven many times in many courts in many countries. It's not clear to me why a court or international arbitration tribunal would find differently in regards to the UK's departure from the EU. I also find it hard to believe that - if the EU were to cease payments to UK civil servants that had gone to the EU under secondment and stayed - cases under UK TUPE legislation would not end up transferring the liability back to the UK government.
From tim80 and archer101au explanation - the demands from the EU, who must also be clear on their legality, are extortion. I see below there are some that think we should make good will payments - there isn't any good will to be bought.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men.
During my urban state school (grammar) education, I rubbed shoulders with many well-off middle-class kids, including the odd millionaire - parents might be doctors at the local hospital, early-retired City traders, that kinda deal - but I'd never met a proper posho.
That changed very promptly after I went up to Cambridge. Bloody hell. Never seen anything like it - or heard, except on the radio I suppose. Turned out there was a whole different world's worth of difference between "the wealthy" and "the well-heeled".
During a study room cramming session in the heights of exam season, the last posh-school chap turned it in for the night, and I was left with a fellow state-schooler. "It's not just that 'they' actually are cleverer than us," he intoned, "but they're even better-looking than us - I swear, some of 'them' you can even tell apart just by looking at them!" And by and large, I still reckon he was right. You could see it, particularly the country-provincial types, whose first car was a Land Rover because they needed the 4x4.
On reflection, they appeared smarter because their education was better so they'd arrived with a head-start, not just in knowledge and skill (they tended to be far better-read, better-schooled in the art of essay-composition, had seen a lot of material beyond the scope of the curriculum, and in STEM subjects had got experience playing with better kit) but also organising their time and intellectual (and other) energy. Their schools had pretty much extracted the maximum of their ability to get so many of them over the Oxbridge line; in terms of raw talent, the truth is they probably averaged out below the state schoolers. I think there's some statistical evidence to back this up, in terms of private school students at university generally getting lower degree grades than state school students with equivalent A-level results.
But why they appeared better-looking, that still puzzles me. It was noticeable, both male and female. They tended to have far more physically active lifestyles, but it wasn't all physique. I suspect some was just mannerisms and posture, that I only picked up subconsciously and so can't pin it down exactly. Clearly the grooming helped, and there was a more classical or plain "classy" aspect to how they did it. I was only really used to people getting dressed up, and for the girls, made up, for a big night out on the pull. This lot were generally immaculately turned-out, on an "all day every day" basis, somehow "for show, not in a showy way". Goodness knows how they did it. Probably youtube tutorials for it all, these days.
To answer your direct question, the EU is not a partnership nor a company. It is an organisation created by treaties. Therefore, it is the treaties that set out what happens, not laws that are designed for completely unconnected types of organisation.
EU pensions are not a member state liability because they are an EU liability, which is a separate legal entity. UK staff were employed by the EU - they are not on 'secondment'. There is a provision that member states guarantee EU pensions. But this only applies to a situation when the EU cannot pay these liabilities - a guarantee is not the same as shared liability, it is a liability that only comes into existence on a primary default. The UK could agree to honour this guarantee if the EU in future defaults on its pension payments (no chance!) and it would fully comply with its legal undertaking. Also, the text of that article seems to state that the guarantee is only offered by 'member states' at the time of a default, not those who are no longer members.
BTW, if a shareholder decides to sell their shares they have no obligations whatsoever for any liabilities. You cannot make these types of analogies.
Davis is going to nail Barnier to the wall on the legalities of all of this. Barnier was getting ratty today at the press conference and I expect to see more of this. Barnier is going to regret that he insisted on 'transparency' in negotiations, as it is going to expose his very poor legal case in the full public glare.
My use of the word 'precedent' was perhaps a mistake.
But I think you misrepresent my position. If a net recipient were to leave, it would still be on the hook for its share (based on gross contributions) of pensions, and potentially for other EU spending in the period of the budget it had signed off on.
As I said, all this is debatable. All I am putting across is the arguments put forward by the EU and the UK. The crux of my point is that when a part of partnership or a corporate entity "breaks off" from the parent, it does not leave all obligations behind, something that has been proven many times in many courts in many countries. It's not clear to me why a court or international arbitration tribunal would find differently in regards to the UK's departure from the EU. I also find it hard to believe that - if the EU were to cease payments to UK civil servants that had gone to the EU under secondment and stayed - cases under UK TUPE legislation would not end up transferring the liability back to the UK government.
I see the Telegraph has grasped the import of the 'detail' Laura K omitted from her report:
David Davis and the EU slammed the door on any prospect of a “soft” Brexit as formal negotiations on leaving the EU finally got underway in Brussels.
The Brexit Secretary confirmed Britain would be leaving the customs union and the single market, in a move designed to scupper any parliamentary plots to water down the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from Europe.
His counterpart, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, also confirmed that Britain would leave the single market and the customs union.
Such a unified public declaration of the intention to press ahead with a “hard” Brexit, sends a clear message to former Remain campaigners in Parliament who still hope membership of the customs union and the single market are up for grabs.
I see the Telegraph has grasped the import of the 'detail' Laura K omitted from her report:
David Davis and the EU slammed the door on any prospect of a “soft” Brexit as formal negotiations on leaving the EU finally got underway in Brussels.
The Brexit Secretary confirmed Britain would be leaving the customs union and the single market, in a move designed to scupper any parliamentary plots to water down the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from Europe.
His counterpart, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, also confirmed that Britain would leave the single market and the customs union.
Such a unified public declaration of the intention to press ahead with a “hard” Brexit, sends a clear message to former Remain campaigners in Parliament who still hope membership of the customs union and the single market are up for grabs.
The American student who was released last week after being held in captivity for more than 15 months in North Korea has died, his family says.
Otto Warmbier, 22, returned to the US last Tuesday, but it emerged he had been in a coma for a year. North Korea said botulism led to the coma, but a team of US doctors who assessed him dispute this account.
I see the Telegraph has grasped the import of the 'detail' Laura K omitted from her report:
David Davis and the EU slammed the door on any prospect of a “soft” Brexit as formal negotiations on leaving the EU finally got underway in Brussels.
The Brexit Secretary confirmed Britain would be leaving the customs union and the single market, in a move designed to scupper any parliamentary plots to water down the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from Europe.
His counterpart, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, also confirmed that Britain would leave the single market and the customs union.
Such a unified public declaration of the intention to press ahead with a “hard” Brexit, sends a clear message to former Remain campaigners in Parliament who still hope membership of the customs union and the single market are up for grabs.
Strange that the 'Soft Brexit' Guardian makes no mention that we are leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market while busy crowing about the EU thrashing the UK:
A: 7 years of tory "bonfire of the regulations" culture in Whitehall.
Say it ain't so.
It Ain't So.
The words "Bonfire of Regulations" and "Whitehall" don't belong together in the same sentence. Ever.
Governments always promise bonfires of quangos and regulations and red tape. Then lists start to appear. Hopeful-looking lists.
Then backtracking. Eventually we find, a few years later, that all that's happened is we've lost our ancient quiz question right to kill Welshmen on a Wednesday June afternoon whilst armed only with chopsticks.
And that's only because of Health and Safety regs which actually, in light of the repeal of the Welshman thing, they've needed to extend and strengthen.
Whatever happened to that vast Quango list I recall from the Telegraph from years ago. Hundreds of committees on it. Let's get a list from today of that. I bet all of them are still there, have been renamed or rebranded. Not a single one will be permanently gone.
I think DD did a great job today. He needs to appear charming and helpful at all times, so when things get stuck he can easily blame the EU for being unreasonable. That will also trump the soft Brexit crowd as they will then have to say which unreasonable EU demands they would actually accept. DD knows there probably won't be a deal anyway, the main objective is to deflect the blame to the EU.
There was no point having a fight over the timetable - in negotiations you concede things that don't matter. The UK always wanted to citizens rights first. The UK will not agree to any payments unless there is a trade deal. NI cannot be resolved without knowing the outcome on trade and customs. It will all end up being agreed together. Given how bad the EU's legal position is on the finances, I think it is in the UKs interests to get this on the table quickly, as it will out the pressure on Barnier to explain why he is demanding money with zero legal case behind him. Also, if there is not going to be a deal, better to know early.
Strange that the 'Soft Brexit' Guardian makes no mention that we are leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market while busy crowing about the EU thrashing the UK:
Strange that the 'Soft Brexit' Guardian makes no mention that we are leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market while busy crowing about the EU thrashing the UK:
Strange that the 'Soft Brexit' Guardian makes no mention that we are leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market while busy crowing about the EU thrashing the UK:
Strange that the 'Soft Brexit' Guardian makes no mention that we are leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market while busy crowing about the EU thrashing the UK:
Comments
Fairly conclusive.
And yes they did look like a mob, and had the same counterproductive effect on MPs as other mobs.
Everyone I knew who went on the march lived, and indeed had their highlights done, in London. Many of them were looking forward to inheriting a bit of the countryside but living there full time wasn't top of their to-do list.
And the competitive mourning. The Daily Mirror calling for a day of national mourning for heaven's sake. It's go to stop.
She tweeted: “Terror attack outside #FinsburyPark mosque. Police must urgently review security for all mosques #StandTogether.”
How come, after the Manchester and London Islamist atrocities, all the MPs said 'carry on as normal, or they've won'?
I've not heard any of the same platitudes being repeated today. If that chap today has to look over his shoulder on his way to the Mosque, then can I show the same trepidation when I see a Muslim? Just in case? Or would that make me an 'Islamophobe'?
And what's the equivalent 'irrational fear' of the majority population? Kafirphobia? Right.
What a fucking mess we have made for ourselves in this country.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-elites-seem-determined-to-commit-suicide-by-diversity-1497821665?mod=e2two
Fire safety is very difficult to regulate for, like all regulation where there are public safety impacts. There are always lots of urgent ideas about how to improve safety but they in turn impose costs and these need to be weighed against the risks.
A month or so ago Labour were 20pts behind. Now they are 3pts ahead.
But it's heartening that you are fine with that.
Electorally daft, and I know people in favour and against out here in semi-rural Derbyshire.
Reality: Remember all that utter nonsense about not being able to even start talking about trade deals until after we had left completely?
Still, it might be the UK press being rather helpful: giving an excuse to the EU27 to claim a 'victory' when actually they have bowed to reality in this non-zero-sum game is quite useful.
Hardly mass murder. One fatality, and it's not even established that that was due to the attack
My point wasn't as sophisticated as an argument about the location of hunting supporters, more about the residential choices of SeanT's hot blond(e)s.
The Tories have called two unnecessary elections...they are paying the price comrade
It net cost the Tories votes, the daft thing is the hunts are able to work round the rules anyway - further banning legislation would be a waste of parliamentary time, as would changing it to something more relaxed.
It is a particularly British medium hard fudge at the moment, which leaves everyone sort of happy..
So why the gibbering and mostly unquestioning appeasement from the Left? It cannot just be about votes at general elections.....can it??
Did I say I was fine with it? Or that I'm not fine with it, for that matter?
My post was about the effect of the media on poll movements over the last 7 days. That is all.
Maybe you are thinking of another poster.
As you say, they are paying the price, but that doesn't make them responsible for the choices of voters.
Labour when you were in power were an unmitigated disaster for the countryside. As far as they were concerned there were no votes to be won so they should either ignore it or try and break any resistance to Labour doctrine. It is no wonder the party are so hated across rural Britain.
The extreme right, certainly up to recent years had more security holes than the cliched swiss cheese. They have been growing in activism in recent years but have long had limited capability to organise and the zealotry to really put a campaign together. Your problem comes that, in the background, they have a few, and it is a few, people who have experience of how to operate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222
If it suits everyone to rewrite history and believe otherwise, that's great. Reality is what matters, and the fact is that, after a few weeks' preliminary discussions, we are now going to get into the meat of real negotiations about the post-Brexit relationship. Thank goodness.
You stitched us up like a right thingy just there, sunshine. Good one.
Have a banana. A straight EU-approved one.
Not bent like the ones Tim Farron secretly likes.
And just as Richard Nabavi rightly says .... it's 1-0 to you *applause* so let's crack on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/must_see/40300824/tanzania-albino-attacks-my-neighbour-hacked-off-my-hands
It is now drowning out the good work they do. I could get behind all their policies, and consider joining, but for the top one. It is lost. Give it up.
Although game is not my meat, nor angling my chosen pastime.Here are their policies.
Against the passing of the 2004 Hunting Ban, and lobbying for its repeal.
Against the closure of rural post offices.
Supporting shooting and deer stalking across the British Isles, by campaigning against additional regulations and negative press coverage,
Encouraging customers and supermarkets to stock food from British farms.
Calling for better broadband connections for homes and small businesses in the countryside.
Organising educational talks and trips to the countryside for schoolchildren.
A "Game-to-Eat" campaign aiming to popularise game as a meat of choice.
Fishing4Schools, an initiative aimed to help children with special educational needs by taking them angling.
Falconry for schools.
Supporting small rural businesses through the Countryside Alliance Awards scheme.
Of course, fox hunting was banned separately by the Scottish Parliament but its prohibition in England and the London march still received a lot of attention up here.
I did get the sense then and for a few years afterwards that a fair chunk of the population thought the fox hunters hadn't been treated particularly fairly, to the extent that it seemed in around 2007 that if the Tories got a workable majority at the next election they would be able to get a reversal or relaxation of the ban through with fairly minimal blow-back. However, the recession, I think, finished that, along with Cameron's failure to get a majority, and by 2015 it was too late. Bigger things were on people's minds, there was much more antagonism towards the wealthy/upper classes and their frolics, and social media by this stage had become a much bigger influence on people's opinions than it was in 2010 (and those pictures of cute foxes went viral).
In any case the fox hunting ban is here for good now, regardless of the arguments against prohibition. The time when the Tories could have got repeal through without too much trouble has long since passed. It may be that the hunts now aren't actually that bothered by the ban staying in place, since they can more or less continue their activities unhindered and in peace - the only thing missing is the fox itself.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble, but I wanted to get that off my chest.
Britain has a wonderful, vibrant, querulous press. Which is an asset as it encourages good government overall. But it does mean in situations like this that it is always looking to find fault.
Colour me surprised.
FWIW...the countryside is always likely to do better with a Labour Govt who always tend to overcompensate for their perceived deficiencies (as to the military)....never seems to stops them voting Tory based on tribal instinct...
But the countryside voting for Brexit...if it wasn't so painful it would be quite amusing...
For the avoidance of doubt I utterly condemn what that muppet did and hope he gets the sentence he deserves.
But lets not pretend the threats are anything like equal.
Any damage would have been caused at the point where Parliament voted on reversing/relaxing the ban. Social media would have exploded with images of fox cubs and red faced men in red coats riding them down.
To recap - I opposed BOTH polls. I would still have opposed holding the referendum had it come up Remain. Two unnecessary elections held (laughably as it transpires) for narrow party political advantage.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1095866/EU-fines-Britain-75m-rural-payments-catastrophe-pushed-farmers-brink-ruin.html
http://www.fwi.co.uk/business/subsidy-delays-driving-farmers-to-suicide.htm
Under EU law, its budget is financed ENTIRELY by the EUs 'own resources'. The idea that the UK pays a subscription and approves EU spending is a fiction, not a legal reality. In fact, the Own Resources Directive specifies that (in addition to money the EU collects directly, e.g. duties and fines) the EU 'owns' a portion of the GDP of each state, based on a formula. Once the ORD was passed, the UK Parliament have no ability to block payments to the EU because they 'belong' to the EU as a matter of law; they are not membership payments but sequestered resources. The members states have to agree to the budget, but by agreeing to it they do not agree to fund it - they are agreeing the spending. The ORD is what sets the money available to the EU - it can be varied but once agreed it lasts forever unless changed again - it is not related to the budget period at all.
The problem is that the ORD is one of the treaties that lapses immediately at the end of the a50 period. So, legally, all that happens is that the EUs own resources are smaller after March 2019. By EU treaty and law, it is explicit that the EU that has to manage its own budget in line with its own resources.
All the comments about shares of liabilities and assets, and 'implicit' promises and undertakings from the UK are factually nonsense. The EU is not a partnership. The EU law is quite clear. David Davis knows this, and judging from the reports of today's meeting, Barnier has been told he has to justify this legally and is not happy about it. The UK owes absolutely nothing by law, not even pension obligations.
Best way to proceed? Agree that the whole exit bill will be referred to binding arbitration at the ICJ if (and only if) there is an overall Brexit agreement on trade. The EU will be totally screwed because they would have to refuse this offer and then they would look totally ridiculous.
However, in terms of tactics, it's the other way round, surely? We should discuss voluntary payments of some kind to help them with their budgetary crisis in return for a smooth Brexit and an on-going trade deal. If they don't want to play ball, our position should be that we pay zero.
rcs1000 talks about precedent but it is a misuse of the word as no precedent is quoted. The logic of the EU's position is that is a net beneficiary of the budget (e.g. Hungary) were to leave they would be owed monies. That is clearly absurd. The logic of the EU's position would be like the UK saying that Scotland has to fund Trident for the next 40 years, even if it goes independent, because it was part of the legal structure which planned it.
The European Investment Bank is very different to the EU. The EIB is an organisation in which member states have shares and the UK is a significant shareholder.
Overall, the UK is owed money. We may not get it (almost certainly not because we want an FTA and transitional arrangements) but that is the position.
The Government must be steadfast about this.
Legal position outlined here by Martin Howe QC
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/files/withdrawal-potential-financial-liabilities-and-jurisdiction.docx
But I think you misrepresent my position. If a net recipient were to leave, it would still be on the hook for its share (based on gross contributions) of pensions, and potentially for other EU spending in the period of the budget it had signed off on.
As I said, all this is debatable. All I am putting across is the arguments put forward by the EU and the UK. The crux of my point is that when a part of partnership or a corporate entity "breaks off" from the parent, it does not leave all obligations behind, something that has been proven many times in many courts in many countries. It's not clear to me why a court or international arbitration tribunal would find differently in regards to the UK's departure from the EU. I also find it hard to believe that - if the EU were to cease payments to UK civil servants that had gone to the EU under secondment and stayed - cases under UK TUPE legislation would not end up transferring the liability back to the UK government.
That changed very promptly after I went up to Cambridge. Bloody hell. Never seen anything like it - or heard, except on the radio I suppose. Turned out there was a whole different world's worth of difference between "the wealthy" and "the well-heeled".
During a study room cramming session in the heights of exam season, the last posh-school chap turned it in for the night, and I was left with a fellow state-schooler. "It's not just that 'they' actually are cleverer than us," he intoned, "but they're even better-looking than us - I swear, some of 'them' you can even tell apart just by looking at them!" And by and large, I still reckon he was right. You could see it, particularly the country-provincial types, whose first car was a Land Rover because they needed the 4x4.
On reflection, they appeared smarter because their education was better so they'd arrived with a head-start, not just in knowledge and skill (they tended to be far better-read, better-schooled in the art of essay-composition, had seen a lot of material beyond the scope of the curriculum, and in STEM subjects had got experience playing with better kit) but also organising their time and intellectual (and other) energy. Their schools had pretty much extracted the maximum of their ability to get so many of them over the Oxbridge line; in terms of raw talent, the truth is they probably averaged out below the state schoolers. I think there's some statistical evidence to back this up, in terms of private school students at university generally getting lower degree grades than state school students with equivalent A-level results.
But why they appeared better-looking, that still puzzles me. It was noticeable, both male and female. They tended to have far more physically active lifestyles, but it wasn't all physique. I suspect some was just mannerisms and posture, that I only picked up subconsciously and so can't pin it down exactly. Clearly the grooming helped, and there was a more classical or plain "classy" aspect to how they did it. I was only really used to people getting dressed up, and for the girls, made up, for a big night out on the pull. This lot were generally immaculately turned-out, on an "all day every day" basis, somehow "for show, not in a showy way". Goodness knows how they did it. Probably youtube tutorials for it all, these days.
EU pensions are not a member state liability because they are an EU liability, which is a separate legal entity. UK staff were employed by the EU - they are not on 'secondment'. There is a provision that member states guarantee EU pensions. But this only applies to a situation when the EU cannot pay these liabilities - a guarantee is not the same as shared liability, it is a liability that only comes into existence on a primary default. The UK could agree to honour this guarantee if the EU in future defaults on its pension payments (no chance!) and it would fully comply with its legal undertaking. Also, the text of that article seems to state that the guarantee is only offered by 'member states' at the time of a default, not those who are no longer members.
BTW, if a shareholder decides to sell their shares they have no obligations whatsoever for any liabilities. You cannot make these types of analogies.
Davis is going to nail Barnier to the wall on the legalities of all of this. Barnier was getting ratty today at the press conference and I expect to see more of this. Barnier is going to regret that he insisted on 'transparency' in negotiations, as it is going to expose his very poor legal case in the full public glare.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789
Q: "How is that even possible?"
A: 7 years of tory "bonfire of the regulations" culture in Whitehall.
Say it ain't so.
David Davis and the EU slammed the door on any prospect of a “soft” Brexit as formal negotiations on leaving the EU finally got underway in Brussels.
The Brexit Secretary confirmed Britain would be leaving the customs union and the single market, in a move designed to scupper any parliamentary plots to water down the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from Europe.
His counterpart, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, also confirmed that Britain would leave the single market and the customs union.
Such a unified public declaration of the intention to press ahead with a “hard” Brexit, sends a clear message to former Remain campaigners in Parliament who still hope membership of the customs union and the single market are up for grabs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/19/david-davis-eu-rule-soft-brexit-day-one-negotiations/
The American student who was released last week after being held in captivity for more than 15 months in North Korea has died, his family says.
Otto Warmbier, 22, returned to the US last Tuesday, but it emerged he had been in a coma for a year.
North Korea said botulism led to the coma, but a team of US doctors who assessed him dispute this account.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40335169
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/19/a-frazzled-david-davis-takes-england-to-a-3-0-defeat-in-the-first-round
Surely this is more than a 'detail'?
The words "Bonfire of Regulations" and "Whitehall" don't belong together in the same sentence. Ever.
Governments always promise bonfires of quangos and regulations and red tape. Then lists start to appear. Hopeful-looking lists.
Then backtracking. Eventually we find, a few years later, that all that's happened is we've lost our ancient quiz question right to kill Welshmen on a Wednesday June afternoon whilst armed only with chopsticks.
And that's only because of Health and Safety regs which actually, in light of the repeal of the Welshman thing, they've needed to extend and strengthen.
Whatever happened to that vast Quango list I recall from the Telegraph from years ago. Hundreds of committees on it. Let's get a list from today of that. I bet all of them are still there, have been renamed or rebranded. Not a single one will be permanently gone.
There was no point having a fight over the timetable - in negotiations you concede things that don't matter. The UK always wanted to citizens rights first. The UK will not agree to any payments unless there is a trade deal. NI cannot be resolved without knowing the outcome on trade and customs. It will all end up being agreed together. Given how bad the EU's legal position is on the finances, I think it is in the UKs interests to get this on the table quickly, as it will out the pressure on Barnier to explain why he is demanding money with zero legal case behind him. Also, if there is not going to be a deal, better to know early.