James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit "requires" nothing other than we leave the EU
Strange how you guys couldn't give us any details of what Brexit meant during the referendum - I remember that "it's up mot the government to decide" coming up a lot - but now you seem to know exactly what it all means.
even stranger how the cream of Britain's politicians couldnt get details from them
I guess maybe they werent that good after all
outwitted by a cut price George Formby impersonator
Why don't you occasionally address the point instead of shouting "look squirrel" ?
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
r thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
snip
I'm a Remainer but there's nothing Hokey-Cokey about me, mate. We voted Out, we leave, we stay out, and we live with it as best we can. That is also the view of a great many who voted like me.
You can't keep calling referendums to test whether the temparture of the water has changed.
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
There should have been a threshold.
Well, would have been better but best would have been for our elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and govern in what they perceived to be our best interests.
That's what they are doing
Before the referendum, there was a substantial Parliamentary majority in favour of remaining. It shirked its responsibilities.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
r thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
snip
I'm a Remainer but there's nothing Hokey-Cokey about me, mate. We voted Out, we leave, we stay out, and we live with it as best we can. That is also the view of a great many who voted like me.
You can't keep calling referendums to test whether the temparture of the water has changed.
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
There should have been a threshold.
Well, would have been better but best would have been for our elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and govern in what they perceived to be our best interests.
That's what they are doing
Before the referendum, there was a substantial Parliamentary majority in favour of remaining. It shirked its responsibilities.
Nah, complacency got the better of them. They thought they'd win easily and end the issue forever.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
r thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
snip
I'm a Remainer but there's nothing Hokey-Cokey about me, mate. We voted Out, we leave, we stay out, and we live with it as best we can. That is also the view of a great many who voted like me.
You can't keep calling referendums to test whether the temparture of the water has changed.
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
There should have been a threshold.
Well, would have been better but best would have been for our elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and govern in what they perceived to be our best interests.
That's what they are doing
Before the referendum, there was a substantial Parliamentary majority in favour of remaining. It shirked its responsibilities.
F1: I was just skimming my Austrian blogs from the last few races (remarkable there have been so many, feels like it was only added last year). Mildly amused one included a line about not much passing, and another that there was tons of passing.
Still feel like I don't know the circuit very well, although straight line speed is king.
I can also recommend playing F1 videogames to get a feel for circuits. Very good for giving impressions of run-off, elevation changes and so on, much better than TV viewing. I haven't played one for a few years, as I tend to knacker controllers (my thumbs are evidently too powerful) but when I did it was very useful indeed.
Which games do you recommend? And on which platform?
I've just had a look on Steam and I see that F1 2016 is currently €15 on sale from €50 at the moment but as I recall you aren't a PC gamer.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leave or Remain, actually. But either way - the Hokey Cokey Brexit favoured by Remainers won't wash. Unless we have control of our borders and sovereignty to make laws (including on trade standards) then how will we have put anymore than our Right Leg Out, and how are we to be reassured that a future inept Remainer government won't put it back in again?
Hokey Cokey is the consequence of what we voted for. I, for one, was trying to tell people that a year ago. I don't think soft Brexit will work either, but once you eliminate the sensible, whatever remains, no matter how nonsensical, must be our way forward.
Interesting how since last June 22nd how the Remain message has moved from
You're all nutters and we're staying in the EU to
You're all nutters and it won't happen because we'll have another referendum to
You're all nutters and it won't happen anyway to
You're all nutters it will be a disaster
Ever heard the expression "He who laughs last laughs longest" ?
You might want to hold off on your gloating for a little while yet.
And what are you going to be laughing at?
People like you trying to explain why everything that happens for the next few years has nothing to do with Brexit
Such as?
Please be specific
Duh! By definition they haven't happened yet, we don't leave till 2019.
You could of course practice by telling us how the devaluation of sterling since June 2016 has nothing to do with Brexit. Should give us a laugh if nothing else.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved: 1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law. The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Mr. Punter, I have some sympathy with that view on holding a referendum, and it chimes somewhat with my own view of debates (distilling complex matters down to a media soundbite).
However, presumably you'd agree that for certain matters (changing the voting system, for example) a referendum is necessary for a decision to have democratic legitimacy?
Do you think, on a purely theoretical basis, that leaving the EU would've been done better had it been a straight manifesto commitment? (Ie Party A says "Vote for us and we leave, no referendum", then gets a majority).
I also share your view about populism, and that's one of the reasons I think entrenching political divisions by proposed regional assemblies in England is the work of Satan.
Referendums have their place in Parliamentary democracies, Morris, so yes I'm generally in agreement with you on this.
They probably work best when there are simple, clear cut issues which the electorate can easily grasp and preferably do not have the kind of long-term consequences that cannot be easily unwound if things work out badly and/or the public changes its views. It also helps if you have a sophisticated and politically alert electorate, and a Media that presents matters fairly and squarely.
I'll leave you to assess the extent to which these conditions applied in the EU rerendum.
As regards your point about Manifesto Commitment, I couldn't agree more. If any Party had Leaving The EU in its Manifesto and been elected with an overall majority, its authority to take us out would have absolute - no referendum necessary.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
r thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
snip
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
There should have been a threshold.
Well, would have been better but best would have been for our elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and govern in what they perceived to be our best interests.
That's what they are doing
Before the referendum, there was a substantial Parliamentary majority in favour of remaining. It shirked its responsibilities.
No ... they could sense that they weren't in touch with long term public opinion.
They couldn't bring themselves to agree with the public so the only way to square that circle was to ask the people directly.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit "requires" nothing other than we leave the EU
Strange how you guys couldn't give us any details of what Brexit meant during the referendum - I remember that "it's up mot the government to decide" coming up a lot - but now you seem to know exactly what it all means.
even stranger how the cream of Britain's politicians couldnt get details from them
I guess maybe they werent that good after all
outwitted by a cut price George Formby impersonator
Why don't you occasionally address the point instead of shouting "look squirrel" ?
Interesting how since last June 22nd how the Remain message has moved from
You're all nutters and we're staying in the EU to
You're all nutters and it won't happen because we'll have another referendum to
You're all nutters and it won't happen anyway to
You're all nutters it will be a disaster
Ever heard the expression "He who laughs last laughs longest" ?
You might want to hold off on your gloating for a little while yet.
And what are you going to be laughing at?
People like you trying to explain why everything that happens for the next few years has nothing to do with Brexit
Such as?
Please be specific
Duh! By definition they haven't happened yet, we don't leave till 2019.
You could of course practice by telling us how the devaluation of sterling since June 2016 has nothing to do with Brexit. Should give us a laugh if nothing else.
No hang on, you said:
"People like you trying to explain why everything that happens for the next few years has nothing to do with Brexit"
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship. The Swiss bilaterals are like that, but the EU realised they made a big mistake. Swiss companies and individuals can sue German partners in a German court on EU law but Germans can't sue Swiss partners on an identical basis. As the EU are calling the shots they will make sure not to repeat the mistake with the UK.
Tactical voting certainly did do it for the Tories in Aberdeen South. A relative of mine who I have just visited voted Tory for the first time in her life and indeed campaigned with other like minded Labour supporters who were anti nationalist to do the same.
Fuuny how easy it is for people like Roger to debunk Mr Herdson's carefully worked analysis supported by the stats with the irrefutable evidence of " a relative of mine" !
Normally I'd agree with you but in this instance I've got a lot of inside knowledge. I knew for example before the vote that it was very likely to go Tory when the polls were saying something different.
Hmmmmm. Never mind - at least living in the south of France with the bulwark of Macron to protect against all and sundry you are insulated from all of the world's demagogues. Are you planning to join president Trump in attending the July 14 celebrations this year?
I don't live in the South of France I have a home there
Yep, twice in a year a Conservative PM has done that.
Proves what happens when politicians take us for granted
I was actually thinking of remainer MPs (of all parties) who voted for the referendum. But yes, Cameron tried to get it over and done with too quickly.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
Frankly, we're becoming a laughing stock.
Given the US just elected Trump and almost saw Sanders beat Hillary, a third of the French voted for Marine Le Pen and a comedian may well be elected PM of Italy next year on current polls I don't think the rest of the western world is in much position to laugh at the UK at the moment either!
Italy already elected a "comedian" several years ago - Silvio!
Mr. Punter, the only problem I can see with that is that a (retrospective, but still) referendum occurred upon our joining the then EEC, so it could be argued the absence of a referendum upon leaving diminished the legitimacy of it and left the door open for a retrospective leaving referendum.
Mr. M, forgot to mention, I am but a lowly console peasant, so I played on the PS3.
Mr. M, the ones I had were going back a few years (2012/2013, I think).
F1 2016 has very good ratings on Amazon, so may well be worth a look.
Yes, the bundle of all those (2011, 12, 14, 15 16) and Race Stars is available for €39.33 but I'm not going to go that far.
I'll dip my toe in the water for the 2016 version at the sale price. Thanks for the tip. Let's see if it improves my betting form!
Edit after your next comment: I recalled after posting that the PS3 was your console of choice. I have a PS4 in a cupboard, unloved and unused. With apologies I did consoles a fair try but I really prefer PC gaming.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
r thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
snip
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
There should have been a threshold.
Well, would have been better but best would have been for our elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and govern in what they perceived to be our best interests.
That's what they are doing
Before the referendum, there was a substantial Parliamentary majority in favour of remaining. It shirked its responsibilities.
No ... they could sense that they weren't in touch with long term public opinion.
They couldn't bring themselves to agree with the public so the only way to square that circle was to ask the people directly.
That's a viewpoint, Geoff, but I suspect the more substantive issue was Cameron's inability to deal with the Eurosceptic wing of his Party.
Mr. Punter, the only problem I can see with that is that a (retrospective, but still) referendum occurred upon our joining the then EEC, so it could be argued the absence of a referendum upon leaving diminished the legitimacy of it and left the door open for a retrospective leaving referendum.
Mr. M, forgot to mention, I am but a lowly console peasant, so I played on the PS3.
Mr Dancer, you remain as ever one of the fairest posters on PB and that is a fair point. Wish I could debate it further with you, but I have a long journey ahead and have to depart soon.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
Nothing in any official document agrees with you. We can leave the EU, indeed are about to, and submit ourselves to the ECJ, the EFTA Court, or the new one that is being mooted to opine on EU citizens in the UK, should we so wish.
We will still have left the EU.
When we pointed to the Leave Manifesto, you all said - nah, it's up to the government. So now you don't agree with that position and are creating all kinds of "actually this means leave" elements.
Interesting how since last June 22nd how the Remain message has moved from
You're all nutters and we're staying in the EU to
You're all nutters and it won't happen because we'll have another referendum to
You're all nutters and it won't happen anyway to
You're all nutters it will be a disaster
Ever heard the expression "He who laughs last laughs longest" ?
You might want to hold off on your gloating for a little while yet.
And what are you going to be laughing at?
People like you trying to explain why everything that happens for the next few years has nothing to do with Brexit
Such as?
Please be specific
Duh! By definition they haven't happened yet, we don't leave till 2019.
636 days 1 hour 25 minutes
Enjoy. Have a big street party in Gibraltar ,if you can find anyone who shares your enthusiasm that is, some of the 4% must still be alive and kicking.
Mr. Punter, kind of you to say so. Hope you have a pleasant sojourn.
On Cameron, I think he simply underestimated the prospect of a majority and thought he'd barter away the referendum. We did have six months of polls level-pegging.
Mr. M, I get that. PCs are more flexible and powerful. I prefer the lower cost and greater convenience of consoles.
Remind me again which party started the last general election campaign downplaying the party name and relegating the other prominent figures to the role of members of the leader's team.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
Frankly, we're becoming a laughing stock.
Given the US just elected Trump and almost saw Sanders beat Hillary, a third of the French voted for Marine Le Pen and a comedian may well be elected PM of Italy next year on current polls I don't think the rest of the western world is in much position to laugh at the UK at the moment either!
Italy already elected a "comedian" several years ago - Silvio!
Who may also be back again next year after Forza Italia won the local elections in Italy earlier this month
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit "requires" nothing other than we leave the EU
Strange how you guys couldn't give us any details of what Brexit meant during the referendum - I remember that "it's up mot the government to decide" coming up a lot - but now you seem to know exactly what it all means.
even stranger how the cream of Britain's politicians couldnt get details from them
I guess maybe they werent that good after all
outwitted by a cut price George Formby impersonator
Why don't you occasionally address the point instead of shouting "look squirrel" ?
Remind me again which party started the last general election campaign downplaying the party name and relegating the other prominent figures to the role of members of the leader's team.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit "requires" nothing other than we leave the EU
Strange how you guys couldn't give us any details of what Brexit meant during the referendum - I remember that "it's up mot the government to decide" coming up a lot - but now you seem to know exactly what it all means.
even stranger how the cream of Britain's politicians couldnt get details from them
I guess maybe they werent that good after all
outwitted by a cut price George Formby impersonator
Why don't you occasionally address the point instead of shouting "look squirrel" ?
I fail to see you have a point bar sour grapes
Failing to see the point is your USP.
and the sour grapes turn in to vinegar
In your head maybe, in the real world not so much.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
r thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
snip
I'm a Remainer but there's nothing Hokey-Cokey about me, mate. We voted Out, we leave, we stay out, and we live with it as best we can. That is also the view of a great many who voted like me.
You can't keep calling referendums to test whether the temparture of the water has changed.
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
There should have been a threshold.
Well, would have been better but best would have been for our elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and govern in what they perceived to be our best interests.
That's what they are doing
Before the referendum, there was a substantial Parliamentary majority in favour of remaining. It shirked its responsibilities.
Well, that really depends on if you think Parliament is the boss of the people or the people are the boss of Parliament.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leaving the EU **requires** those three things daodao wrote. Without them we are not truly leaving and the referendum result will not be honoured. Forget the rubbish about hard, soft etc.
Are Norway and Switzerland in the EU, then?
No, but they're not 'leaving' it - they have effectively half-joined it (just not the political union) and are content with that position. Leaving does not mean "part leaving" it means leaving (in full).
That's simply not true.
Leaving the EU means not being a member of the EU, nothing more, nothing less.
Quite. Is it not a matter of settled law that Brexit will mean whatever muddled agreement we can come to with the EU (or no agreement at all, in which case WTO), which can gain the approval of the U.K. parliament ?
It would be interesting to watch disappointed Brexiteers trying a reverse Gina Miller though.
I see the monomaniac obsessives came out in force to respond to my last post. Curiously, none of them chose to address their own shortcomings or dissociate themselves from the idea that Britain is teeming with quislings and saboteurs.
I don't think Britain is teeming with such people. The public in general are more relaxed about the issue than we are.
It's once again the remainers trying to make an argument they lost
I have a friend ( 56 years old ) whos very Remain and for him the young peoples vote in the GE was a revolt against Leave
My son who's 21 and has lots of Corbyn voting mates says leave had little to do with it but Uni fees and job prospects have
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
Tactical voting certainly did do it for the Tories in Aberdeen South. A relative of mine who I have just visited voted Tory for the first time in her life and indeed campaigned with other like minded Labour supporters who were anti nationalist to do the same.
Fuuny how easy it is for people like Roger to debunk Mr Herdson's carefully worked analysis supported by the stats with the irrefutable evidence of " a relative of mine" !
Normally I'd agree with you but in this instance I've got a lot of inside knowledge. I knew for example before the vote that it was very likely to go Tory when the polls were saying something different.
Hmmmmm. Never mind - at least living in the south of France with the bulwark of Macron to protect against all and sundry you are insulated from all of the world's demagogues. Are you planning to join president Trump in attending the July 14 celebrations this year?
I don't live in the South of France I have a home there
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
r thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
snip
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
There should have been a threshold.
Well, would have been better but best would have been for our elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and govern in what they perceived to be our best interests.
That's what they are doing
Before the referendum, there was a substantial Parliamentary majority in favour of remaining. It shirked its responsibilities.
No ... they could sense that they weren't in touch with long term public opinion.
They couldn't bring themselves to agree with the public so the only way to square that circle was to ask the people directly.
That's a viewpoint, Geoff, but I suspect the more substantive issue was Cameron's inability to deal with the Eurosceptic wing of his Party.
Who knows for sure though?
The Eurosceptic wing of his party only needed dealing with because its viewpoint had significant support amongst the public, though, so it's a little chicken-and-egg.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/ any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit "requires" nothing other than we leavemeans.
even stranger how the cream of Britain's politicians couldnt get details from them
I guess maybe they werent that good after all
outwitted by a cut price George Formby impersonator
Why don't you occasionally address the point instead of shouting "look squirrel" ?
I fail to see you have a point bar sour grapes
Failing to see the point is your USP.
and the sour grapes turn in to vinegar
In your head maybe, in the real world not so much.
In the real world people dont sit endlessly on blogs banging on about Europe
all those thousands tuned in to Love Island are more interested in who's shagging who or what's happening to Kim Kardashians ass this week
in the real world their votes and opinions count as much as yours and they dont really give a shit about Brexit
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
No it's not. It's up to us to decide whether and what relationship we want with the EU and whether we are prepared to compromise to get it. It's irresponsible to blame the other party for our failure to face to to the consequences of our decisions.
I see the monomaniac obsessives came out in force to respond to my last post. Curiously, none of them chose to address their own shortcomings or dissociate themselves from the idea that Britain is teeming with quislings and saboteurs.
I don't think Britain is teeming with such people. The public in general are more relaxed about the issue than we are.
It's once again the remainers trying to make an argument they lost
I have a friend ( 56 years old ) whos very Remain and for him the young peoples vote in the GE was a revolt against Leave
My son who's 21 and has lots of Corbyn voting mates says leave had little to do with it but Uni fees and job prospects have
who to believe ?
Going off my mid-20’s grandchildren and grandchild-in-law (soon to be) your son is right, although the ideas that this country is fine as it is fills them with dismay.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
r thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
snip
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
There should have been a threshold.
Well, would have been better but best would have been for our elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and govern in what they perceived to be our best interests.
That's what they are doing
Before the referendum, there was a substantial Parliamentary majority in favour of remaining. It shirked its responsibilities.
No ... they could sense that they weren't in touch with long term public opinion.
They couldn't bring themselves to agree with the public so the only way to square that circle was to ask the people directly.
Tactical voting certainly did do it for the Tories in Aberdeen South. A relative of mine who I have just visited voted Tory for the first time in her life and indeed campaigned with other like minded Labour supporters who were anti nationalist to do the same.
Fuuny how easy it is for people like Roger to debunk Mr Herdson's carefully worked analysis supported by the stats with the irrefutable evidence of " a relative of mine" !
Normally I'd agree with you but in this instance I've got a lot of inside knowledge. I knew for example before the vote that it was very likely to go Tory when the polls were saying something different.
Hmmmmm. Never mind - at least living in the south of France with the bulwark of Macron to protect against all and sundry you are insulated from all of the world's demagogues. Are you planning to join president Trump in attending the July 14 celebrations this year?
I don't live in the South of France I have a home there
I guess that would be a stiff upper lip 'no comment' to the question then.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
r thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
snip
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
There should have been a threshold.
Well, would have been better but best would have been for our elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and govern in what they perceived to be our best interests.
That's what they are doing
Before the referendum, there was a substantial Parliamentary majority in favour of remaining. It shirked its responsibilities.
No ... they could sense that they weren't in touch with long term public opinion.
They couldn't bring themselves to agree with the public so the only way to square that circle was to ask the people directly.
... and get a 50:50 (almost) result
Indeed. Not close to the " a substantial Parliamentary majority" that Peter_the_Punter correctly talks about existing at the time. And therefore making exactly my point.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
No it's not.
You're saying that if the EU doesn't get what is impossible it will walk away from a deal. You're quite right that they can choose to do this.
In your head maybe, in the real world not so much.
In the real world people dont sit endlessly on blogs banging on about Europe
all those thousands tuned in to Love Island are more interested in who's shagging who or what's happening to Kim Kardashians ass this week
in the real world their votes and opinions count as much as yours and they dont really give a shit about Brexit
Youv'e shot off on another tangent again. The point that started this was whether the Norway option was a possible way to fulfil the referendum mandate as DaoDao seemed to be claiming it wasn't. You contribution to the debate was some irrelevancy about remain. I was interested in the issue under discussion all you seem to be bothered about is point scoring.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
No it's not.
You're saying that if the EU doesn't get what is impossible it will walk away from a deal. You're quite right that they can choose to do this.
What you are calling "impossible" is YOUR refusal to compromise on EU law applying in the UK, to the extent YOU would prefer not to have any meaningful relationship with the major countries of Europe, the continent we happen to be a part of. That's a valid if absolutist opinion that appears to be substantially shared with Theresa May. But it is a decision with consequences that don't apply if you are more flexible.
I don't know much about Scottish politics, but it seems clear that Davidson is attempting to define the Scottish Tories as the unionist counterpart to the SNP - fairly mild policies coupled with firm unionism - and that she had some success with that. Because Labour also recovered the game isn't over yet, but betting against an SNP majority at the next Holyrood election looks a good idea.
On the young, I'm quite sure that Brexit wasn't a major factor in most of their voting decisions - at most they saw it as one of many examples of the older generation screwing their futures and a reason not to forget to register to vote. There IS a significant hardcore Remain vote but it's mostly older centrists who see the EU project as a guarantor of a civlised, moderate Europe. The reason that the LibDems didn't mop them up is that the same group is politically sophisticated and given to tactical voting. They are disappointed by Labour's "the result has to be accepted, let's get a good deal" stance but generally not enough to make them vote Tory, since they see them as actively hostile to the project.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
No it's not.
You're saying that if the EU doesn't get what is impossible it will walk away from a deal. You're quite right that they can choose to do this.
What you are calling "impossible" is YOUR refusal to compromise on EU law applying in the UK, to the extent YOU would prefer not to have any meaningful relationship with the major countries of Europe, the continent we happen to be a part of. That's a valid if absolutist opinion that appears to be substantially shared with Theresa May. But it is a decision with consequences that don't apply if you are more flexible.
I don't want to be "more flexible" or to "compromise".
I voted to Leave. The option "Fudge It" wasn't on my ballot paper.
I have a friend ( 56 years old ) whos very Remain and for him the young peoples vote in the GE was a revolt against Leave My son who's 21 and has lots of Corbyn voting mates says leave had little to do with it but Uni fees and job prospects have who to believe ?
Both, Mr Brooke. The issues are closely linked. If you want good job prospects - and even more so if you want to have have your university fees paid for you - you have to have a strong economy. And that means being in the single market.
Your 56 year old friend has a broader long-term vision. Your son and his mates are a bit short-sighted. They will probably have to learn the hard way.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
No it's not.
You're saying that if the EU doesn't get what is impossible it will walk away from a deal. You're quite right that they can choose to do this.
What you are calling "impossible" is YOUR refusal to compromise on EU law applying in the UK, to the extent YOU would prefer not to have any meaningful relationship with the major countries of Europe, the continent we happen to be a part of. That's a valid if absolutist opinion that appears to be substantially shared with Theresa May. But it is a decision with consequences that don't apply if you are more flexible.
I don't want to be "more flexible" or to "compromise".
I voted to Leave. The option "Fudge It" wasn't on my ballot paper.
Don't panic; we are leaving.
It may not be your precise version of leaving, but as you didn't vote for any specific version of leave, that doesn't matter.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
No it's not.
You're saying that if the EU doesn't get what is impossible it will walk away from a deal. You're quite right that they can choose to do this.
What you are calling "impossible" is YOUR refusal to compromise on EU law applying in the UK
As I said, when we have Left the EU, its law should not apply in the UK any more than Australian or Malawian law. I think that's fairly obvious, as we will no longer be a member - can you give any reason (other than "to get a deal", which isn't a reason per se) why it should?
I see the monomaniac obsessives came out in force to respond to my last post. Curiously, none of them chose to address their own shortcomings or dissociate themselves from the idea that Britain is teeming with quislings and saboteurs.
I don't think Britain is teeming with such people. The public in general are more relaxed about the issue than we are.
It's once again the remainers trying to make an argument they lost
I have a friend ( 56 years old ) whos very Remain and for him the young peoples vote in the GE was a revolt against Leave
My son who's 21 and has lots of Corbyn voting mates says leave had little to do with it but Uni fees and job prospects have
who to believe ?
It was definitely uni fees, but in combination that they thought corbyn wasn't hard brexit. If a farage led ukip offered free uni fees and other sweeties they wouldn't have got anywhere.
All this concentration on yuff vote losing the tory majority isnt the primary reason though. They added a few % to labour 2015 vote , but it was the 35-50 age bracket that may did terribly with that really hurt the Tories.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
No it's not.
You're saying that if the EU doesn't get what is impossible it will walk away from a deal. You're quite right that they can choose to do this.
What you are calling "impossible" is YOUR refusal to compromise on EU law applying in the UK
As I said, when we have Left the EU, its law should not apply in the UK any more than Australian or Malawian law. I think that's fairly obvious, as we will no longer be a member - can you give any reason (other than "to get a deal", which isn't a reason per se) why it should?
When a financial services firm in Sevenoaks trades the US dollar they are governed by US law.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
No it's not.
You're saying that if the EU doesn't get what is impossible it will walk away from a deal. You're quite right that they can choose to do this.
What you are calling "impossible" is YOUR refusal to compromise on EU law applying in the UK, to the extent YOU would prefer not to have any meaningful relationship with the major countries of Europe, the continent we happen to be a part of. That's a valid if absolutist opinion that appears to be substantially shared with Theresa May. But it is a decision with consequences that don't apply if you are more flexible.
I don't want to be "more flexible" or to "compromise".
I voted to Leave. The option "Fudge It" wasn't on my ballot paper.
That's valid. The consequence is that we will no longer have the close relationship with the major countries of Europe that we had before. We will no longer enjoy the same lifestyle and people will pay for it with their jobs, access to free healthcare and so on.
In the "real world" I think people will get twitchy
Just seen the england test squad....About as exciting as the tory manifesto!
Joe Root (capt) Alastair Cook Keaton Jennings Gary Ballance Jonny Bairstow Ben Stokes Moeen Ali Liam Dawson Toby Roland-Jones Stuart Broad Mark Wood Jimmy Anderson
Root's first squad as captain.
No Haseeb Hameed who impressed me in India but Keaton Jennings gets the nod to open - presumably that Bombay century figuring in the weighing up.
Surprised about Dawson. He was only at Madras because he suited the pitch and Ali still, bizarrely, is the go-to "spinner" on the basis of his batting.
Roland-Jones is much more likely to get the nod and his first cap on his home ground.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
No it's not.
You're saying that if the EU doesn't get what is impossible it will walk away from a deal. You're quite right that they can choose to do this.
What you are calling "impossible" is YOUR refusal to compromise on EU law applying in the UK, to the extent YOU would prefer not to have any meaningful relationship with the major countries of Europe, the continent we happen to be a part of. That's a valid if absolutist opinion that appears to be substantially shared with Theresa May. But it is a decision with consequences that don't apply if you are more flexible.
I don't want to be "more flexible" or to "compromise".
I voted to Leave. The option "Fudge It" wasn't on my ballot paper.
That's valid. The consequence is that we will no longer have the close relationship with the major countries of Europe that we had before. We will no longer enjoy the same lifestyle and people will pay for it with their jobs, access to free healthcare and so on.
In the "real world" I think people will get twitchy
I disagree fundamentally with all that and I strongly believe that life will be better.
As gamblers on this site (well, some of us) I wish that there was some sort of metric that we could settle on to frame success or failure - but there isn't. It will come down to perception and individual experiences.
But I for one am excited by the new opportunities and wider horizons we'll gain.
Just seen the england test squad....About as exciting as the tory manifesto!
Joe Root (capt) Alastair Cook Keaton Jennings Gary Ballance Jonny Bairstow Ben Stokes Moeen Ali Liam Dawson Toby Roland-Jones Stuart Broad Mark Wood Jimmy Anderson
Root's first squad as captain.
No Haseeb Hameed who impressed me in India but Keaton Jennings gets the nod to open - presumably that Bombay century figuring in the weighing up.
Surprised about Dawson. He was only at Madras because he suited the pitch and Ali still, bizarrely, is the go-to "spinner" on the basis of his batting.
Roland-Jones is much more likely to get the nod and his first cap on his home ground.
Plus Ballance back again, never a test player. Roland Jones is no spring chicken and no real variation in the bowling ie all right arm, all seamers about the same pace (wood faster in bursts).
Just seen the england test squad....About as exciting as the tory manifesto!
Joe Root (capt) Alastair Cook Keaton Jennings Gary Ballance Jonny Bairstow Ben Stokes Moeen Ali Liam Dawson Toby Roland-Jones Stuart Broad Mark Wood Jimmy Anderson
Root's first squad as captain.
No Haseeb Hameed who impressed me in India but Keaton Jennings gets the nod to open - presumably that Bombay century figuring in the weighing up.
Surprised about Dawson. He was only at Madras because he suited the pitch and Ali still, bizarrely, is the go-to "spinner" on the basis of his batting.
Roland-Jones is much more likely to get the nod and his first cap on his home ground.
Hameed has not made many runs for Lancs this season. He is young, has great technique, though,and a good temperament too. Time is on his side.
Just seen the england test squad....About as exciting as the tory manifesto!
Joe Root (capt) Alastair Cook Keaton Jennings Gary Ballance Jonny Bairstow Ben Stokes Moeen Ali Liam Dawson Toby Roland-Jones Stuart Broad Mark Wood Jimmy Anderson
Root's first squad as captain.
No Haseeb Hameed who impressed me in India but Keaton Jennings gets the nod to open - presumably that Bombay century figuring in the weighing up.
Surprised about Dawson. He was only at Madras because he suited the pitch and Ali still, bizarrely, is the go-to "spinner" on the basis of his batting.
Roland-Jones is much more likely to get the nod and his first cap on his home ground.
Plus Ballance back again, never a test player. Roland Jones is no spring chicken and no real variation in the bowling ie all right arm, all seamers about the same pace (wood faster in bursts).
Agree with all that. Ballance has had a great run at county level including a 100 and 200 against my county Hampshire in April. But he just can't convert it to Test level, and like Hick we've just got to accept that now after quite a few chances.
Jennings is doing okay for the Lions right now at Worcester (30 off 38, 6 fours in that). It doesn't seem to be on tv which is annoying.
Just seen the england test squad....About as exciting as the tory manifesto!
Joe Root (capt) Alastair Cook Keaton Jennings Gary Ballance Jonny Bairstow Ben Stokes Moeen Ali Liam Dawson Toby Roland-Jones Stuart Broad Mark Wood Jimmy Anderson
Root's first squad as captain.
No Haseeb Hameed who impressed me in India but Keaton Jennings gets the nod to open - presumably that Bombay century figuring in the weighing up.
Surprised about Dawson. He was only at Madras because he suited the pitch and Ali still, bizarrely, is the go-to "spinner" on the basis of his batting.
Roland-Jones is much more likely to get the nod and his first cap on his home ground.
Hameed has not made many runs for Lancs this season. He is young, has great technique, though,and a good temperament too. Time is on his side.
I would still prefer him to Ballance . Yes Ballance is doing well in county cricket but he is never a test player. Hameed on the other hand looks like he has what it takes.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Obviously number 1 is the one that should fall. EU law shouldn't apply in the UK after we Leave the EU any more than Australian or Malawian law does now.
Then there won't be a relationship.
If the EU wants to walk away, that's always been up to them, of course.
No it's not.
You're saying that if the EU doesn't get what is impossible it will walk away from a deal. You're quite right that they can choose to do this.
What you are calling "impossible" is YOUR refusal to compromise on EU law applying in the UK
As I said, when we have Left the EU, its law should not apply in the UK any more than Australian or Malawian law. I think that's fairly obvious, as we will no longer be a member - can you give any reason (other than "to get a deal", which isn't a reason per se) why it should?
Damnit. My reply got eaten. So I'll be very brief.
All treaties contain dispute resolution mechanisms. The EU likes to use the ECJ, and many of the FTAs it has signed include the ECJ as an arbiter. The ECJ, in this case, has no ability to overrule a national government, merely to judge that a country is not in adherence with its treaty obligations. The greatest sanction the court could - theoretically - wield in these circumstances would be to suspend the agreement*.
So, saying "ECJ jurisdiction" can mean very different things, and people need to be more precise in their language.
Just seen the england test squad....About as exciting as the tory manifesto!
Joe Root (capt) Alastair Cook Keaton Jennings Gary Ballance Jonny Bairstow Ben Stokes Moeen Ali Liam Dawson Toby Roland-Jones Stuart Broad Mark Wood Jimmy Anderson
Root's first squad as captain.
No Haseeb Hameed who impressed me in India but Keaton Jennings gets the nod to open - presumably that Bombay century figuring in the weighing up.
Surprised about Dawson. He was only at Madras because he suited the pitch and Ali still, bizarrely, is the go-to "spinner" on the basis of his batting.
Roland-Jones is much more likely to get the nod and his first cap on his home ground.
Hameed has not made many runs for Lancs this season. He is young, has great technique, though,and a good temperament too. Time is on his side.
Yes he's struggled this season and he'll come good.
Hameed is one of those prospects that merits a risk or two, though, and be given the chance to play though his poor form.
Just seen the england test squad....About as exciting as the tory manifesto!
Joe Root (capt) Alastair Cook Keaton Jennings Gary Ballance Jonny Bairstow Ben Stokes Moeen Ali Liam Dawson Toby Roland-Jones Stuart Broad Mark Wood Jimmy Anderson
Root's first squad as captain.
No Haseeb Hameed who impressed me in India but Keaton Jennings gets the nod to open - presumably that Bombay century figuring in the weighing up.
Surprised about Dawson. He was only at Madras because he suited the pitch and Ali still, bizarrely, is the go-to "spinner" on the basis of his batting.
Roland-Jones is much more likely to get the nod and his first cap on his home ground.
Hameed has not made many runs for Lancs this season. He is young, has great technique, though,and a good temperament too. Time is on his side.
I would still prefer him to Ballance . Yes Ballance is doing well in county cricket but he is never a test player. Hameed on the other hand looks like he has what it takes.
We were typing similar sentiments at the same time. Agree with this wholeheartedly.
Just seen the england test squad....About as exciting as the tory manifesto!
Joe Root (capt) Alastair Cook Keaton Jennings Gary Ballance Jonny Bairstow Ben Stokes Moeen Ali Liam Dawson Toby Roland-Jones Stuart Broad Mark Wood Jimmy Anderson
Root's first squad as captain.
No Haseeb Hameed who impressed me in India but Keaton Jennings gets the nod to open - presumably that Bombay century figuring in the weighing up.
Surprised about Dawson. He was only at Madras because he suited the pitch and Ali still, bizarrely, is the go-to "spinner" on the basis of his batting.
Roland-Jones is much more likely to get the nod and his first cap on his home ground.
Hameed has not made many runs for Lancs this season. He is young, has great technique, though,and a good temperament too. Time is on his side.
Yes he's struggled this season and he'll come good.
Hameed is one of those prospects that merits a risk or two, though, and be given the chance to play though his poor form.
Roland-Jones is a slight surprise to me. Looked very average at Chelmsford last week.
What england need to find at test level is variation / flexibility.
At T20 and ODI they have it with rashid / crane leg spinners, the likes of Willey and mills left arm (and in case of mills extremely rapid). Also they have found good like for like replacements eg woakes injuried -> plunkett in. Buttler / bairstow are interchangeable.
Instead we keep going back to the likes of Ballance and Finn.
What is also worrying is we don't have anybody as good as Anderson or broad and especially Anderson can't have long left now.
I disagree fundamentally with all that and I strongly believe that life will be better.
As gamblers on this site (well, some of us) I wish that there was some sort of metric that we could settle on to frame success or failure - but there isn't. It will come down to perception and individual experiences.
But I for one am excited by the new opportunities and wider horizons we'll gain.
I'm sure you do think that and I'm certainly not going to say you are wrong. I would make two points. Firstly if you Brexit on principle, whether it is successful or not is irrelevant. You just do it. Secondly, most of the people that voted Leave did so on the understanding that there would be continuity, not least because the Leave campaign told them that. Success does matter to them. That's why I have always thought Brexit will end in a messy stalemate. It will be Leave, but a compromised one.
Just seen the england test squad....About as exciting as the tory manifesto!
Joe Root (capt) Alastair Cook Keaton Jennings Gary Ballance Jonny Bairstow Ben Stokes Moeen Ali Liam Dawson Toby Roland-Jones Stuart Broad Mark Wood Jimmy Anderson
Root's first squad as captain.
No Haseeb Hameed who impressed me in India but Keaton Jennings gets the nod to open - presumably that Bombay century figuring in the weighing up.
Surprised about Dawson. He was only at Madras because he suited the pitch and Ali still, bizarrely, is the go-to "spinner" on the basis of his batting.
Roland-Jones is much more likely to get the nod and his first cap on his home ground.
Hameed has not made many runs for Lancs this season. He is young, has great technique, though,and a good temperament too. Time is on his side.
I would still prefer him to Ballance . Yes Ballance is doing well in county cricket but he is never a test player. Hameed on the other hand looks like he has what it takes.
We were typing similar sentiments at the same time. Agree with this wholeheartedly.
Fragile fingers? Although Nasser Hussein has, too.
Just found this. Possibly a sort of Tory ersatz version of 'We cannot be killed'.
May’s rapid success in broadening her party’s appeal raises the question of whether she is lucky or skilful. The answer is a bit of both. As Cameron’s former advisers never fail to point out, she is extremely fortunate to be facing Jeremy Corbyn, the weakest Labour leader in a generation. His failings and Ukip’s post-referendum collapse have given the Tories the chance to take a slew of Labour seats. The Tory campaign’s emphasis on Theresa May is a reminder that she, personally, is more popular than her party, while Corbyn is much more unpopular than his. After the drama of the referendum, she has presented herself as the responsible adult, who will make this new settlement work. Her low-key, provincial style is as in keeping with the times as Tony Blair’s classless optimism was in the late 1990s.
Just seen the england test squad....About as exciting as the tory manifesto!
Joe Root (capt) Alastair Cook Keaton Jennings Gary Ballance Jonny Bairstow Ben Stokes Moeen Ali Liam Dawson Toby Roland-Jones Stuart Broad Mark Wood Jimmy Anderson
Root's first squad as captain.
No Haseeb Hameed who impressed me in India but Keaton Jennings gets the nod to open - presumably that Bombay century figuring in the weighing up.
Surprised about Dawson. He was only at Madras because he suited the pitch and Ali still, bizarrely, is the go-to "spinner" on the basis of his batting.
Roland-Jones is much more likely to get the nod and his first cap on his home ground.
Hameed has not made many runs for Lancs this season. He is young, has great technique, though,and a good temperament too. Time is on his side.
I would still prefer him to Ballance . Yes Ballance is doing well in county cricket but he is never a test player. Hameed on the other hand looks like he has what it takes.
We were typing similar sentiments at the same time. Agree with this wholeheartedly.
Fragile fingers? Although Nasser Hussein has, too.
I know what you mean but you took my comeback example straight away from me!
Just found this. Possibly a sort of Tory ersatz version of 'We cannot be killed'.
May’s rapid success in broadening her party’s appeal raises the question of whether she is lucky or skilful. The answer is a bit of both. As Cameron’s former advisers never fail to point out, she is extremely fortunate to be facing Jeremy Corbyn, the weakest Labour leader in a generation. His failings and Ukip’s post-referendum collapse have given the Tories the chance to take a slew of Labour seats. The Tory campaign’s emphasis on Theresa May is a reminder that she, personally, is more popular than her party, while Corbyn is much more unpopular than his. After the drama of the referendum, she has presented herself as the responsible adult, who will make this new settlement work. Her low-key, provincial style is as in keeping with the times as Tony Blair’s classless optimism was in the late 1990s.
Damnit. My reply got eaten. So I'll be very brief.
All treaties contain dispute resolution mechanisms. The EU likes to use the ECJ, and many of the FTAs it has signed include the ECJ as an arbiter. The ECJ, in this case, has no ability to overrule a national government, merely to judge that a country is not in adherence with its treaty obligations. The greatest sanction the court could - theoretically - wield in these circumstances would be to suspend the agreement*.
So, saying "ECJ jurisdiction" can mean very different things, and people need to be more precise in their language.
I don't think that's enough for the EU in this case. In effect that's how the Swiss EU bilaterals are governed. It creates imbalances as Swiss individuals and companies can sue EU entities and governments under EU law but EU individuals and companies can't do the same in Switzerland. Unless the EU tells the Swiss government what laws to enact and Swiss courts how to interpret those laws, which is judicial overreach. It's a genuinely tricky issue, but one the EU is not going to be flexible on. They (correctly) believe EU membership is there to deal with that issue.
Just found this. Possibly a sort of Tory ersatz version of 'We cannot be killed'.
May’s rapid success in broadening her party’s appeal raises the question of whether she is lucky or skilful. The answer is a bit of both. As Cameron’s former advisers never fail to point out, she is extremely fortunate to be facing Jeremy Corbyn, the weakest Labour leader in a generation. His failings and Ukip’s post-referendum collapse have given the Tories the chance to take a slew of Labour seats. The Tory campaign’s emphasis on Theresa May is a reminder that she, personally, is more popular than her party, while Corbyn is much more unpopular than his. After the drama of the referendum, she has presented herself as the responsible adult, who will make this new settlement work. Her low-key, provincial style is as in keeping with the times as Tony Blair’s classless optimism was in the late 1990s.
Damnit. My reply got eaten. So I'll be very brief.
All treaties contain dispute resolution mechanisms. The EU likes to use the ECJ, and many of the FTAs it has signed include the ECJ as an arbiter. The ECJ, in this case, has no ability to overrule a national government, merely to judge that a country is not in adherence with its treaty obligations. The greatest sanction the court could - theoretically - wield in these circumstances would be to suspend the agreement*.
So, saying "ECJ jurisdiction" can mean very different things, and people need to be more precise in their language.
I don't think that's enough for the EU in this case. In effect that's how the Swiss EU bilaterals are governed. It creates imbalances as Swiss individuals and companies can sue EU entities and governments under EU law but EU individuals and companies can't do the same in Switzerland. Unless the EU tells the Swiss government what laws to enact and Swiss courts how to interpret those laws, which is judicial overreach. It's a genuinely tricky issue, but one the EU is not going to be flexible on. They (correctly) believe EU membership is there to deal with that issue.
I don't think you're correct. If you look at the description of the EU-Swiss bilaterals, it is made clear that the ECJ has no say.
We need to know what calibre the DE was before we pass judgment. .50 = LOL.
Yes it was a .50
A muzzle velocity exceeding 1900 fps and muzzle energy of 2800 ft-lbs. That's twice as fast as .45s and they hit with the force of a .308 Winchester. And he protected himself with a book. LOLOLOL
Comments
I've just had a look on Steam and I see that F1 2016 is currently €15 on sale from €50 at the moment but as I recall you aren't a PC gamer.
You could of course practice by telling us how the devaluation of sterling since June 2016 has nothing to do with Brexit. Should give us a laugh if nothing else.
They probably work best when there are simple, clear cut issues which the electorate can easily grasp and preferably do not have the kind of long-term consequences that cannot be easily unwound if things work out badly and/or the public changes its views. It also helps if you have a sophisticated and politically alert electorate, and a Media that presents matters fairly and squarely.
I'll leave you to assess the extent to which these conditions applied in the EU rerendum.
As regards your point about Manifesto Commitment, I couldn't agree more. If any Party had Leaving The EU in its Manifesto and been elected with an overall majority, its authority to take us out would have absolute - no referendum necessary.
F1 2016 has very good ratings on Amazon, so may well be worth a look.
They couldn't bring themselves to agree with the public so the only way to square that circle was to ask the people directly.
Yep, twice in a year a Conservative PM has done that.
Proves what happens when politicians take us for granted
"People like you trying to explain why everything that happens for the next few years has nothing to do with Brexit"
What things? Its a straightforward question
Mr. M, forgot to mention, I am but a lowly console peasant, so I played on the PS3.
I'll dip my toe in the water for the 2016 version at the sale price. Thanks for the tip. Let's see if it improves my betting form!
Edit after your next comment: I recalled after posting that the PS3 was your console of choice. I have a PS4 in a cupboard, unloved and unused. With apologies I did consoles a fair try but I really prefer PC gaming.
Who knows for sure though?
A bientot.
Nothing in any official document agrees with you. We can leave the EU, indeed are about to, and submit ourselves to the ECJ, the EFTA Court, or the new one that is being mooted to opine on EU citizens in the UK, should we so wish.
We will still have left the EU.
When we pointed to the Leave Manifesto, you all said - nah, it's up to the government. So now you don't agree with that position and are creating all kinds of "actually this means leave" elements.
And that is amusing.
On Cameron, I think he simply underestimated the prospect of a majority and thought he'd barter away the referendum. We did have six months of polls level-pegging.
Mr. M, I get that. PCs are more flexible and powerful. I prefer the lower cost and greater convenience of consoles.
Is it not a matter of settled law that Brexit will mean whatever muddled agreement we can come to with the EU (or no agreement at all, in which case WTO), which can gain the approval of the U.K. parliament ?
It would be interesting to watch disappointed Brexiteers trying a reverse Gina Miller though.
I have a friend ( 56 years old ) whos very Remain and for him the young peoples vote in the GE was a revolt against Leave
My son who's 21 and has lots of Corbyn voting mates says leave had little to do with it but Uni fees and job prospects have
who to believe ?
all those thousands tuned in to Love Island are more interested in who's shagging who or what's happening to Kim Kardashians ass this week
in the real world their votes and opinions count as much as yours and they dont really give a shit about Brexit
*doffs cap* My thanks.
all those thousands tuned in to Love Island are more interested in who's shagging who or what's happening to Kim Kardashians ass this week
in the real world their votes and opinions count as much as yours and they dont really give a shit about Brexit
Youv'e shot off on another tangent again. The point that started this was whether the Norway option was a possible way to fulfil the referendum mandate as DaoDao seemed to be claiming it wasn't. You contribution to the debate was some irrelevancy about remain. I was interested in the issue under discussion all you seem to be bothered about is point scoring.
On the young, I'm quite sure that Brexit wasn't a major factor in most of their voting decisions - at most they saw it as one of many examples of the older generation screwing their futures and a reason not to forget to register to vote. There IS a significant hardcore Remain vote but it's mostly older centrists who see the EU project as a guarantor of a civlised, moderate Europe. The reason that the LibDems didn't mop them up is that the same group is politically sophisticated and given to tactical voting. They are disappointed by Labour's "the result has to be accepted, let's get a good deal" stance but generally not enough to make them vote Tory, since they see them as actively hostile to the project.
I voted to Leave. The option "Fudge It" wasn't on my ballot paper.
Your 56 year old friend has a broader long-term vision. Your son and his mates are a bit short-sighted. They will probably have to learn the hard way.
It may not be your precise version of leaving, but as you didn't vote for any specific version of leave, that doesn't matter.
All this concentration on yuff vote losing the tory majority isnt the primary reason though. They added a few % to labour 2015 vote , but it was the 35-50 age bracket that may did terribly with that really hurt the Tories.
In the "real world" I think people will get twitchy
Alastair Cook
Keaton Jennings
Gary Ballance
Jonny Bairstow
Ben Stokes
Moeen Ali
Liam Dawson
Toby Roland-Jones
Stuart Broad
Mark Wood
Jimmy Anderson
Root's first squad as captain.
No Haseeb Hameed who impressed me in India but Keaton Jennings gets the nod to open - presumably that Bombay century figuring in the weighing up.
Surprised about Dawson. He was only at Madras because he suited the pitch and Ali still, bizarrely, is the go-to "spinner" on the basis of his batting.
Roland-Jones is much more likely to get the nod and his first cap on his home ground.
As gamblers on this site (well, some of us) I wish that there was some sort of metric that we could settle on to frame success or failure - but there isn't. It will come down to perception and individual experiences.
But I for one am excited by the new opportunities and wider horizons we'll gain.
Jennings is doing okay for the Lions right now at Worcester (30 off 38, 6 fours in that). It doesn't seem to be on tv which is annoying.
All treaties contain dispute resolution mechanisms. The EU likes to use the ECJ, and many of the FTAs it has signed include the ECJ as an arbiter. The ECJ, in this case, has no ability to overrule a national government, merely to judge that a country is not in adherence with its treaty obligations. The greatest sanction the court could - theoretically - wield in these circumstances would be to suspend the agreement*.
So, saying "ECJ jurisdiction" can mean very different things, and people need to be more precise in their language.
Hameed is one of those prospects that merits a risk or two, though, and be given the chance to play though his poor form.
At T20 and ODI they have it with rashid / crane leg spinners, the likes of Willey and mills left arm (and in case of mills extremely rapid). Also they have found good like for like replacements eg woakes injuried -> plunkett in. Buttler / bairstow are interchangeable.
Instead we keep going back to the likes of Ballance and Finn.
What is also worrying is we don't have anybody as good as Anderson or broad and especially Anderson can't have long left now.
May’s rapid success in broadening her party’s appeal raises the question of whether she is lucky or skilful. The answer is a bit of both. As Cameron’s former advisers never fail to point out, she is extremely fortunate to be facing Jeremy Corbyn, the weakest Labour leader in a generation. His failings and Ukip’s post-referendum collapse have given the Tories the chance to take a slew of Labour seats. The Tory campaign’s emphasis on Theresa May is a reminder that she, personally, is more popular than her party, while Corbyn is much more unpopular than his. After the drama of the referendum, she has presented herself as the responsible adult, who will make this new settlement work. Her low-key, provincial style is as in keeping with the times as Tony Blair’s classless optimism was in the late 1990s.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/theresa-may-has-both-luck-and-skill-on-her-side-in-this-election-campaign/
"Michael Portillo has a famous motto: "Who Dares Wins"!
"WE dare! WE will WIN!"
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
Detectives have arrested two men in Essex and a third in East Sussex on suspicion of preparing terror acts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4656762/Counter-terrorism-detectives-arrest-three-men.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40459493
We haven't had a winner since Adam West despite over 230 nominations on our latest thread.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/deea/dv/2203_07/2203_07en.pdf
Page 4, bottom right hand corner says explicitly that no rights are passed to the ECJ as part of the EU-Switzerland bilaterals.
About time. I am sick of seeing drivers using phones.
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/06/30/ios-11-do-not-disturb-while-driving/
A muzzle velocity exceeding 1900 fps and muzzle energy of 2800 ft-lbs. That's twice as fast as .45s and they hit with the force of a .308 Winchester. And he protected himself with a book. LOLOLOL
Keaton Jennings b Morkel 39 (92m 66b 8x4 0x6) SR: 59.09