Seems like Don Jr was told they had the emails and so decided to publish them himself. Removes a level of deniability... But maybe not the dumbest move? Onto the front foot. Can claim being open about the affair.
It would have been a story in the "failing NY Times" that Trump would dismiss as fake news.
It is strange that it was the ABC1 group that were taken in by the offer of free stuff and a magic money tree in the Labour manifesto - not the C2 DE group.
Is this poor numeracy amongst the professional class the result of poor education during the Blair years?
The Conservatives have trashed their own reputation for sober government. Once they had done that, why wouldn't people vote for what they most liked the sound of, regardless of the cost?
Because the IMF looms when governments can no longer borrow in the debt markets?
Once the Conservatives had decided to pursue extreme Brexit
Define 'extreme Brexit'
Summed up in two Prime Ministerial phrases:
"No deal is better than a bad deal" "Citizens of nowhere"
Cop out - what does not extreme Brexit look like?
It means accepting that compromise is going to be essential and being welcoming to those with outlooks that differ from Mrs May's bumpkinocracy rather than stigmatising them.
So you can't describe it.....thanks for clearing that up.
I'm sorry that you're unable to read. I wouldn't be flaunting that though if I were you.
I'm sorry that you can't make an argument or describe a scenario that isn't 'extreme Brexit' - your loss, not mine.
Donald Trump Jr's first call after he was allegedly offered information on Hillary Clinton by a Russia-linked lawyer should have been to the FBI, a former White House ethics lawyer has said.
Seems like Don Jr was told they had the emails and so decided to publish them himself. Removes a level of deniability... But maybe not the dumbest move? Onto the front foot. Can claim being open about the affair.
It would have been a story in the "failing NY Times" that Trump would dismiss as fake news.
Now it's an email proof.
Numpty
Hmm... That's true. Maybe in a weeks time he will claim his Twitter account was hacked.
It is strange that it was the ABC1 group that were taken in by the offer of free stuff and a magic money tree in the Labour manifesto - not the C2 DE group.
Is this poor numeracy amongst the professional class the result of poor education during the Blair years?
The Conservatives have trashed their own reputation for sober government. Once they had done that, why wouldn't people vote for what they most liked the sound of, regardless of the cost?
Because the IMF looms when governments can no longer borrow in the debt markets?
Once the Conservatives had decided to pursue extreme Brexit
Define 'extreme Brexit'
Summed up in two Prime Ministerial phrases:
"No deal is better than a bad deal" "Citizens of nowhere"
Cop out - what does not extreme Brexit look like?
It means accepting that compromise is going to be essential and being welcoming to those with outlooks that differ from Mrs May's bumpkinocracy rather than stigmatising them.
So you can't describe it.....thanks for clearing that up.
I'm sorry that you're unable to read. I wouldn't be flaunting that though if I were you.
I'm sorry that you can't make an argument or describe a scenario that isn't 'extreme Brexit' - your loss, not mine.
I described a scenario that isn't extreme Brexit. It's your loss if you're too partisan or too stupid to read.
It is strange that it was the ABC1 group that were taken in by the offer of free stuff and a magic money tree in the Labour manifesto - not the C2 DE group.
Is this poor numeracy amongst the professional class the result of poor education during the Blair years?
The Conservatives have trashed their own reputation for sober government. Once they had done that, why wouldn't people vote for what they most liked the sound of, regardless of the cost?
Because the IMF looms when governments can no longer borrow in the debt markets?
Once the Conservatives had decided to pursue extreme Brexit
Define 'extreme Brexit'
Summed up in two Prime Ministerial phrases:
"No deal is better than a bad deal" "Citizens of nowhere"
Cop out - what does not extreme Brexit look like?
It means accepting that compromise is going to be essential and being welcoming to those with outlooks that differ from Mrs May's bumpkinocracy rather than stigmatising them.
So you can't describe it.....thanks for clearing that up.
I'm sorry that you're unable to read. I wouldn't be flaunting that though if I were you.
I'm sorry that you can't make an argument or describe a scenario that isn't 'extreme Brexit' - your loss, not mine.
I described a scenario that isn't extreme Brexit. It's your loss if you're too partisan or too stupid to read.
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
King Cole, didn't get much, the suggestion was the short notice was for security reasons, although being a bit rubbish at promotion can't be ruled out.
It is strange that it was the ABC1 group that were taken in by the offer of free stuff and a magic money tree in the Labour manifesto - not the C2 DE group.
Is this poor numeracy amongst the professional class the result of poor education during the Blair years?
The Conservatives have trashed their own reputation for sober government. Once they had done that, why wouldn't people vote for what they most liked the sound of, regardless of the cost?
Because the IMF looms when governments can no longer borrow in the debt markets?
Once the Conservatives had decided to pursue extreme Brexit
Define 'extreme Brexit'
Summed up in two Prime Ministerial phrases:
"No deal is better than a bad deal" "Citizens of nowhere"
Cop out - what does not extreme Brexit look like?
It means accepting that compromise is going to be essential and being welcoming to those with outlooks that differ from Mrs May's bumpkinocracy rather than stigmatising them.
So you can't describe it.....thanks for clearing that up.
I'm sorry that you're unable to read. I wouldn't be flaunting that though if I were you.
I'm sorry that you can't make an argument or describe a scenario that isn't 'extreme Brexit' - your loss, not mine.
I described a scenario that isn't extreme Brexit. It's your loss if you're too partisan or too stupid to read.
I must have missed you description of 'single market (or no), customs union (or no) freedom of movement (or no), ECJ jurisdiction (or no) when all I read were soundbites you claim to despise.
King Cole, didn't get much, the suggestion was the short notice was for security reasons, although being a bit rubbish at promotion can't be ruled out.
While generally I think 'sticks & stones etc - post Cox people have to be aware of the consequences of words too:
An aristocrat who wrote an online post offering £5,000 for businesswoman Gina Miller to be run over, has been found guilty of two charges of malicious communications.
Rhodri Colwyn Philipps, 50, the 4th Viscount St Davids, wrote the message four days after Ms Miller won a Brexit legal challenge against the government.
Chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said she had "no doubt it was menacing".
Philipps, who called his comments "satire", faces a custodial sentence.
I disagree. The positions on citizens' rights are quite far apart. It doesn't mean they won't be bridged.
the UK is essentially offering no guarantees at all.
And the EU is demanding extra-territorial jurisdiction and superior rights for EU citizens over UK citizens.
The UK proposal is serious and workable. It's the only serious bit of work the government has done on Brexit in one year. It is not especially generous however - unless we throw people out on their ear who have made their homes and worked here for decades, we would have to offer something similar. It is also less than what the EU proposes for both EU and UK citizens in their respective countries of residence. The EU could say, OK we accept your proposal, there could be a haggle to meet in the middle or they could say, sorry, no deal.
There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.
It is strange that it was the ABC1 group that were taken in by the offer of free stuff and a magic money tree in the Labour manifesto - not the C2 DE group.
Is this poor numeracy amongst the professional class the result of poor education during the Blair years?
The Conservatives have trashed their own reputation for sober government. Once they had done that, why wouldn't people vote for what they most liked the sound of, regardless of the cost?
Because the IMF looms when governments can no longer borrow in the debt markets?
Once the Conservatives had decided to pursue extreme Brexit
Define 'extreme Brexit'
Summed up in two Prime Ministerial phrases:
"No deal is better than a bad deal" "Citizens of nowhere"
Cop out - what does not extreme Brexit look like?
It means accepting that compromise is going to be essential and being welcoming to those with outlooks that differ from Mrs May's bumpkinocracy rather than stigmatising them.
So you can't describe it.....thanks for clearing that up.
I'm sorry that you're unable to read. I wouldn't be flaunting that though if I were you.
I'm sorry that you can't make an argument or describe a scenario that isn't 'extreme Brexit' - your loss, not mine.
I described a scenario that isn't extreme Brexit. It's your loss if you're too partisan or too stupid to read.
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
It means 'compromising'.....which both sides are....
The citizens of nowhere Speech was my favourite of all Mrs Mays. It captures the zeitgeist of screw the native workers screw their living standards neo-liberal euro capitalism. It stinks and is a fundamental reason why we voted out.
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
It is strange that it was the ABC1 group that were taken in by the offer of free stuff and a magic money tree in the Labour manifesto - not the C2 DE group.
Is this poor numeracy amongst the professional class the result of poor education during the Blair years?
The Conservatives have trashed their own reputation for sober government. Once they had done that, why wouldn't people vote for what they most liked the sound of, regardless of the cost?
Because the IMF looms when governments can no longer borrow in the debt markets?
Once the Conservatives had decided to pursue extreme Brexit
Define 'extreme Brexit'
Summed up in two Prime Ministerial phrases:
"No deal is better than a bad deal" "Citizens of nowhere"
Cop out - what does not extreme Brexit look like?
It means accepting that compromise is going to be essential and being welcoming to those with outlooks that differ from Mrs May's bumpkinocracy rather than stigmatising them.
So you can't describe it.....thanks for clearing that up.
I'm sorry that you're unable to read. I wouldn't be flaunting that though if I were you.
I'm sorry that you can't make an argument or describe a scenario that isn't 'extreme Brexit' - your loss, not mine.
I described a scenario that isn't extreme Brexit. It's your loss if you're too partisan or too stupid to read.
I must have missed you description of 'single market (or no), customs union (or no) freedom of movement (or no), ECJ jurisdiction (or no) when all I read were soundbites you claim to despise.
Did you type it in invisible ink?
Everyone else seems to have managed to understood me perfectly well. So the problem is obviously with you, not me.
Donald Trump Jr's first call after he was allegedly offered information on Hillary Clinton by a Russia-linked lawyer should have been to the FBI, a former White House ethics lawyer has said.
The speed at which the alt-right can get a hatchet job out is impressive. The reality is that he worked for George Bush Jr as an ethic lawyer and is a lifelong republican.
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.
It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.
About to try walking the dog with a toe that has decided to hurt in a strange way.
Didn't see much in the markets that appealed. Perhaps the most intriguing was Ricciardo podium 3.5. He's had his best run of podium finishes in a row (five consecutive).
There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.
If there is going to be a level playing field, the same law has to be applied in the same way across the UK and the EU. If we also accept the reality that the EU is not going to change the way it does things simply to accommodate the UK, the law will be the EU law that applies at the time and which the UK will in future have no say in drafting and the law will be applied according to ECJ judgments. Now the actual court might be a UK or third party one, but it will be one that is explicitly implementing EU law according to ECJ judgement.
There is a real problem of sovereignty and jurisdiction.
Edit. The UK position so far is we don't need any supranational legal recourse to regulate the agreements. The EU won't accept that.
I disagree. The positions on citizens' rights are quite far apart. It doesn't mean they won't be bridged.
the UK is essentially offering no guarantees at all.
And the EU is demanding extra-territorial jurisdiction and superior rights for EU citizens over UK citizens.
The UK proposal is serious and workable. It's the only serious bit of work the government has done on Brexit in one year. It is not especially generous however - unless we throw people out on their ear who have made their homes and worked here for decades, we would have to offer something similar. It is also less than what the EU proposes for both EU and UK citizens in their respective countries of residence. The EU could say, OK we accept your proposal, there could be a haggle to meet in the middle or they could say, sorry, no deal.
There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.
How is extra-territorial jurisdiction supposed to work? Do we have two levels of crime, say, sometimes it's a crime but not if it's perpetrated by an EU citizen? Sort of like Diplomatic privilege?
The end of the British Grand Prix at Silverstone, unless there is a new deal
Yes, Silverstone are desperate to get themselves out of Ecclestone's handcuffs with an annual 5% escalator making the race unprofitable to stage.
There's also credible rumours around of a London consortium proposing the staging of a street race in the Docklands area.
For these in central London tomorrow, there will an F1 exhibition in Trafalgar Square, with the cars running down Whitehall in the evening which is definitely going to be worth watching.
It is strange that it was the ABC1 group that were taken in by the offer of free stuff and a magic money tree in the Labour manifesto - not the C2 DE group.
Is this poor numeracy amongst the professional class the result of poor education during the Blair years?
The Conservatives have trashed their own reputation for sober government. Once they had done that, why wouldn't people vote for what they most liked the sound of, regardless of the cost?
Because the IMF looms when governments can no longer borrow in the debt markets?
Once the Conservatives had decided to pursue extreme Brexit
Define 'extreme Brexit'
Summed up in two Prime Ministerial phrases:
"No deal is better than a bad deal" "Citizens of nowhere"
Cop out - what does not extreme Brexit look like?
It means accepting that compromise is going to be essential and being welcoming to those with outlooks that differ from Mrs May's bumpkinocracy rather than stigmatising them.
So you can't describe it.....thanks for clearing that up.
I'm sorry that you're unable to read. I wouldn't be flaunting that though if I were you.
I'm sorry that you can't make an argument or describe a scenario that isn't 'extreme Brexit' - your loss, not mine.
I described a scenario that isn't extreme Brexit. It's your loss if you're too partisan or too stupid to read.
I must have missed you description of 'single market (or no), customs union (or no) freedom of movement (or no), ECJ jurisdiction (or no) when all I read were soundbites you claim to despise.
Did you type it in invisible ink?
Everyone else seems to have managed to understood me perfectly well. So the problem is obviously with you, not me.
You can't even answer 'Single Market' - you're the one who's hiding behind fatuous slogans.
There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.
If there is going to be a level playing field, the same law has to be applied in the same way across the UK and the EU. If we also accept the reality that the EU is not going to change the way it does things simply to accommodate the UK, the law will be the EU law that applies at the time and which the UK will in future have no say in drafting and the law will be applied according to ECJ judgments. Now the actual court might be a UK or third party one, but it will be one that is explicitly implementing EU law according to ECJ judgement.
There is a real problem of sovereignty and jurisdiction.
It's also why, despite the friendly rhetoric, Brexit is intellectually incompatible with wanting the EU to succeed. Brexit only makes sense if the EU itself disintegrates, or if we don't need a 'deep and special partnership' with our continental neighbours.
I disagree. The positions on citizens' rights are quite far apart. It doesn't mean they won't be bridged.
the UK is essentially offering no guarantees at all.
And the EU is demanding extra-territorial jurisdiction and superior rights for EU citizens over UK citizens.
The UK proposal is serious and workable. It's the only serious bit of work the government has done on Brexit in one year. It is not especially generous however - unless we throw people out on their ear who have made their homes and worked here for decades, we would have to offer something similar. It is also less than what the EU proposes for both EU and UK citizens in their respective countries of residence. The EU could say, OK we accept your proposal, there could be a haggle to meet in the middle or they could say, sorry, no deal.
There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.
How is extra-territorial jurisdiction supposed to work? Do we have two levels of crime, say, sometimes it's a crime but not if it's perpetrated by an EU citizen? Sort of like Diplomatic privilege?
Good evening, everyone.
In this case, an individual claims he has a right to stay in the UK or to receive a particular entitlement. A UK citizen can apply to a UK court for a judgment on domestic nationality, employment or welfare law. An EU citizen in the UK would not be able to apply to a court for a judgement on the terms of the EU settled status agreement as they apply to him under current UK proposals. However a UK citizen in the EU could apply to the ECJ.
You can't even answer 'Single Market' - you're the one who's hiding behind fatuous slogans.
I've given a much longer answer which touched on that. As I accurately predicted in that post, you have proved yourself incapable of reading that too.
If you're unable to do anything than spew out irrelevancies in the hope of distracting from your chosen idol's manifest and multiple inadequacies, kindly do not waste my time.
The end of the British Grand Prix at Silverstone, unless there is a new deal
Yes, Silverstone are desperate to get themselves out of Ecclestone's handcuffs with an annual 5% escalator making the race unprofitable to stage.
There's also credible rumours around of a London consortium proposing the staging of a street race in the Docklands area.
For these in central London tomorrow, there will an F1 exhibition in Trafalgar Square, with the cars running down Whitehall in the evening which is definitely going to be worth watching.
I just read a short article in the Standard on the possible "east London" Grand Prix. Not sure if it's online.
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.
It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.
Considering the type of seats labour made its biggest gains in- I.e. suburban middle class seats like Keighley, High Peak, Battersea, and Canterbury, it could have been a lot, lot worse for the Tories.
New Labour came into existence to win such seats, Tories should thank their lucky stars UNS broke down during this election.
I disagree. The positions on citizens' rights are quite far apart. It doesn't mean they won't be bridged.
the UK is essentially offering no guarantees at all.
And the EU is demanding extra-territorial jurisdiction and superior rights for EU citizens over UK citizens.
The UK proposal is serious and workable. It's the only serious bit of work the government has done on Brexit in one year. It is not especially generous however - unless we throw people out on their ear who have made their homes and worked here for decades, we would have to offer something similar. It is also less than what the EU proposes for both EU and UK citizens in their respective countries of residence. The EU could say, OK we accept your proposal, there could be a haggle to meet in the middle or they could say, sorry, no deal.
There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.
How is extra-territorial jurisdiction supposed to work? Do we have two levels of crime, say, sometimes it's a crime but not if it's perpetrated by an EU citizen? Sort of like Diplomatic privilege?
Good evening, everyone.
An EU citizen in the UK would not be able to apply to a court for a judgement on the terms of the EU settled status agreement as they apply to him under current UK proposals.
Wouldn't they be able to apply to the UK Supreme Court?
The govt is going to carry on twaddling away in fantasy mode about the various Brexit types and arguing about the divorce bill and EU citizens until it runs out of time and we WTO out.
Then they can moan about the Europeans setting unreasonable timetables and holding things up ("Not our fault Gov'nor"), the EU / UK citizens' standing will still need sorting, no divorce money will have been paid and we will be out.
That assumes a coherence and will from the government that has been entirely absent up until now. They claim, as far as I can tell genuinely, that something will turn up. Boris Johnson as recently as today.
Boris's fantasies are not something we can depend on. If this is how we negotiate with a group of nearby countries with whom we have a lot of standards and such in common, how will we fare against countries with a completely different outlook and ethos?
At the minute, it seems like we could not negotiate our way out of a wet paper bag.
There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.
If there is going to be a level playing field, the same law has to be applied in the same way across the UK and the EU. If we also accept the reality that the EU is not going to change the way it does things simply to accommodate the UK, the law will be the EU law that applies at the time and which the UK will in future have no say in drafting and the law will be applied according to ECJ judgments. Now the actual court might be a UK or third party one, but it will be one that is explicitly implementing EU law according to ECJ judgement.
There is a real problem of sovereignty and jurisdiction.
It's also why, despite the friendly rhetoric, Brexit is intellectually incompatible with wanting the EU to succeed. Brexit only makes sense if the EU itself disintegrates, or if we don't need a 'deep and special partnership' with our continental neighbours.
That is so true. If the EU disintegrates into a pile of dust, it might be a problem in itself, but the UK's specific problems go away. We would be very smug at having got out first.
Which is why so many people hope/expect it will happen. But as the EU almost certainly won't go away in the near future, we have a problem. A problem that can only be solved by full membership of the EU. (I know I am arguing for the EEA in the circumstances we are in, but it isn't really a solution in that sense)
You can't even answer 'Single Market' - you're the one who's hiding behind fatuous slogans.
I've given a much longer answer which touched on that.
'Touched on' = 'vacuous platitudes'
"It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures." You seem unable to understand the most straightforward of sentences. Until you can, I suggest you refresh your reading skills.
Meanwhile, my original point remains. The Conservative government we all labour under is pursuing an extreme Brexit. Unsurprisingly, those who are out of sympathy with that vision are exploring other voting options. No amount of chaff from dimwitted partisans can conceal that.
One point to note. For months in advance of the general election, the Conservatives' performance in local by-elections had been decidedly ho-hum. This was dismissed as irrelevant by those pbers who were uber-loyalist to the blue cause. But it seems to have foreshadowed a lack of enthusiasm for the Conservative cause that proved to be important when their campaign was put under strain.
But then came Copeland, and the Conservatives' local by-election performance was transformed, and the local elections in May were excellent.
Even if leads of 20% were froth, I think the Conservatives really were leading by double digits at the start of the campaign, and then threw it away.
The curious thing about the locals vs the GE, to me, was that the LDs did very well in vote share in the locals, but disastrously in terms of seats. In the GE, that was reversed: they did disastrously in terms of vote share, but very well in terms of seats.
12 seats is a good return for 7.6%, but it's still pretty dismal.
The number of realistic targets for the Lib Dems has fallen. Some of the Tory majorities in seats that were recently held by the Lib Dems, or were very marginal, are now enormous,
Hell, the LibDems aren't even the challengers in a lot of those seats anymore.
I was astonished in the last thread to see that Labour are now second in Newton Abbot.
As well as West Devon, Totnes, St. Austell, SE Cornwall, Camborne.
I suspect that’s the EU effect. The SW, in spite of having some massive grants was very anti EU. Whether that will last or whether we’ve seen a permanent shift I’ll leave others to judge.
The EU as a whole is a net contributor to EU coffers.
Which train were you on when you wrote that? Obviously a very shaky one!
I was just trying to see if you were alert
What, of course, I should have said is:
The UK as a whole is a net contributor to EU coffers
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.
It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.
It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.
The end of the British Grand Prix at Silverstone, unless there is a new deal
Yes, Silverstone are desperate to get themselves out of Ecclestone's handcuffs with an annual 5% escalator making the race unprofitable to stage.
There's also credible rumours around of a London consortium proposing the staging of a street race in the Docklands area.
For these in central London tomorrow, there will an F1 exhibition in Trafalgar Square, with the cars running down Whitehall in the evening which is definitely going to be worth watching.
I just read a short article in the Standard on the possible "east London" Grand Prix. Not sure if it's online.
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.
It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.
I wouldn't want a political union with Alabama or Louisiana thanks.
And I'm sure they wouldn't want one with us.
Now I think you're just being racist
er.....no.
Many southern states still live with the legacy of white supremacist policy.
In Florida for example a third of the black population are disenfranchised. Disgusting.
In the U.K we get outraged bu an MP saying an outdated phrase with racist language there they don't bat an eyelid at the legacy of continued blatant black discrimination throughout every sphere of life. From the justice system to politics to economics etc.
Imagine this happened in the U.K as happend in North Carolina, today......actually don't because it wouldn't.
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.
It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.
I wouldn't want a political union with Alabama or Louisiana thanks.
And I'm sure they wouldn't want one with us.
Now I think you're just being racist
er.....no.
Many southern states still live with the legacy of white supremacist policy.
In Florida for example a third of the black population are disenfranchised. Disgusting.
In the U.K we get outraged bu an MP saying an outdated phrase with racist language there they don't bat an eyelid at the legacy of continued blatant black discrimination throughout every sphere of life. From the justice system to politics to economics etc.
Imagine this happened in the U.K as happend in North Carolina, today......actually don't because it wouldn't.
All very LOL, but there's limits to how naive trump jr can actually be. It seems to me more likely than not that an informed decision has been made that as the relevant emails are going to come out sooner or later, this is the least worst way of disclosing them. Say there are, in the future, impeachment proceedings in which these emails are raised: if that's the first anyone hears of them that is a real pearl-clutching moment. Better to be able to say, yeah, but we've known about those since summer 2017, so how come you did nothing about them then?
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
I agree with pretty much all of this.
Apologies for the length of my reply and in 2 parts because of it.
PART 1
But I think the "citizens of nowhere" quote has also been, to some extent, misinterpreted.
This is the relevant bit of the speech:-
"Yet within our society today, we see division and unfairness all around. Between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation. Between the wealth of London and the rest of the country.
But perhaps most of all, between the rich, the successful and the powerful - and their fellow citizens.
.......
That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.
That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.
That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.
But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…
An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…
A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…
A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…
.....This can’t go on anymore."
The examples she quotes are ones where I think the Tories do have a point - that people who are well off in this society and as a result of the hard work of all of us, of people who are much less well off, do - IMO - owe an obligation to those around us, to pay tax, to treat staff well, to contribute and not merely to treat a country as a place where you make your money without any social, legal or moral obligations to that country and the people in it.
There has, I think, been an unwelcome development in recent years of a sort of Richistan where rich people interact only with each other and treat the rest of us as somehow less important, as if money is the only thing that matters. And I think - I hope - you would agree that the value of a person is more, much more, than their wealth. Society exists and society matters. And it matters that all of us contribute to the society in which we live, not try and shut ourselves off, insulated by wealth.
This feeling that too many of the rich see themselves as a class apart from the rest is one reason why Corbyn has been as successful as he has been. He has a point that the levels of inequality and a sort of F*** You mentality to the less well off are inimical to a fair society. May correctly identified the same sickness at the heart of modern day capitalism.
Where you have a point is in criticizing the implication that if you are interested in the world beyond your borders you are somehow not a good citizen of the country you live in. That is a false dichotomy.
But it is also fair to say that there are some who seem so interested in the wider world and in being part of it and in glorying in this that they can sometimes give the very strong impression that they don't care at all about people around them, their immediate neighbours, the very people on whom they depend for their lifestyle. It's like those who emote about the poor in far off places and hold lavish charity balls for them but do nothing about paying decent wages to the cleaners in their own places of work and won't even speak to them when they see them.
There are too many Mrs Jellabys around. There are too many people who think that caring about people in this country who do not have the advantages that the likes of you and I have had is somehow being insular and provincial.
And I challenge that. Loving your neighbor is a good principle to live by. An understanding of the world can start with understanding the neighbourhood and place you live in. It's not either/or.
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.
It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.
I wouldn't want a political union with Alabama or Louisiana thanks.
And I'm sure they wouldn't want one with us.
Now I think you're just being racist
er.....no.
Many southern states still live with the legacy of white supremacist policy.
In Florida for example a third of the black population are disenfranchised. Disgusting.
In the U.K we get outraged bu an MP saying an outdated phrase with racist language there they don't bat an eyelid at the legacy of continued blatant black discrimination throughout every sphere of life. From the justice system to politics to economics etc.
Imagine this happened in the U.K as happend in North Carolina, today......actually don't because it wouldn't.
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
ike Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.
I wouldn't want a political union with Alabama or Louisiana thanks.
And I'm sure they wouldn't want one with us.
Now I think you're just being racist
er.....no.
Many southern states still live with the legacy of white supremacist policy.
In Florida for example a third of the black population are disenfranchised. Disgusting.
In the U.K we get outraged bu an MP saying an outdated phrase with racist language there they don't bat an eyelid at the legacy of continued blatant black discrimination throughout every sphere of life. From the justice system to politics to economics etc.
Imagine this happened in the U.K as happend in North Carolina, today......actually don't because it wouldn't.
"In 2016, federal courts struck down many of voting restrictions and gerrymandered districts instituted by Republicans, saying they harmed racial minorities."
The govt is going to carry on twaddling away in fantasy mode about the various Brexit types and arguing about the divorce bill and EU citizens until it runs out of time and we WTO out.
Then they can moan about the Europeans setting unreasonable timetables and holding things up ("Not our fault Gov'nor"), the EU / UK citizens' standing will still need sorting, no divorce money will have been paid and we will be out.
That assumes a coherence and will from the government that has been entirely absent up until now. They claim, as far as I can tell genuinely, that something will turn up. Boris Johnson as recently as today.
Boris's fantasies are not something we can depend on. If this is how we negotiate with a group of nearby countries with whom we have a lot of standards and such in common, how will we fare against countries with a completely different outlook and ethos?
At the minute, it seems like we could not negotiate our way out of a wet paper bag.
Not just Boris. Theresa May was saying just a couple of days ago she expects a comprehensive trade arrangement to be agreed in the next 18 months. That almost certainly comes from David Davis.
What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?
If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.
It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.
There has, I think, been an unwelcome development in recent years of a sort of Richistan where rich people interact only with each other and treat the rest of us as somehow less important, as if money is the only thing that matters. And I think - I hope - you would agree that the value of a person is more, much more, than their wealth. Society exists and society matters. And it matters that all of us contribute to the society in which we live, not try and shut ourselves off, insulated by wealth.
This feeling that too many of the rich see themselves as a class apart from the rest is one reason why Corbyn has been as successful as he has been. He has a point that the levels of inequality and a sort of F*** You mentality to the less well off are inimical to a fair society. May correctly identified the same sickness at the heart of modern day capitalism.
Where you have a point is in criticizing the implication that if you are interested in the world beyond your borders you are somehow not a good citizen of the country you live in. That is a false dichotomy.
But it is also fair to say that there are some who seem so interested in the wider world and in being part of it and in glorying in this that they can sometimes give the very strong impression that they don't care at all about people around them, their immediate neighbours, the very people on whom they depend for their lifestyle. It's like those who emote about the poor in far off places and hold lavish charity balls for them but do nothing about paying decent wages to the cleaners in their own places of work and won't even speak to them when they see them.
There are too many Mrs Jellabys around. There are too many people who think that caring about people in this country who do not have the advantages that the likes of you and I have had is somehow being insular and provincial.
And I challenge that. Loving your neighbor is a good principle to live by. An understanding of the world can start with understanding the neighbourhood and place you live in. It's not either/or.
Both you and she make some good points.
She is, however, becoming an expert at describing and showing she understands a problem, without demonstrating any insight, drive or inclination to do anything concrete about it, or even of knowing what might be done. After a year in the job it is about time she put up, or shut up.
There has, I think, been an unwelcome development in recent years of a sort of Richistan where rich people interact only with each other and treat the rest of us as somehow less important, as if money is the only thing that matters. And I think - I hope - you would agree that the value of a person is more, much more, than their wealth. Society exists and society matters. And it matters that all of us contribute to the society in which we live, not try and shut ourselves off, insulated by wealth.
This feeling that too many of the rich see themselves as a class apart from the rest is one reason why Corbyn has been as successful as he has been. He has a point that the levels of inequality and a sort of F*** You mentality to the less well off are inimical to a fair society. May correctly identified the same sickness at the heart of modern day capitalism.
Where you have a point is in criticizing the implication that if you are interested in the world beyond your borders you are somehow not a good citizen of the country you live in. That is a false dichotomy.
But it is also fair to say that there are some who seem so interested in the wider world and in being part of it and in glorying in this that they can sometimes give the very strong impression that they don't care at all about people around them, their immediate neighbours, the very people on whom they depend for their lifestyle. It's like those who emote about the poor in far off places and hold lavish charity balls for them but do nothing about paying decent wages to the cleaners in their own places of work and won't even speak to them when they see them.
There are too many Mrs Jellabys around. There are too many people who think that caring about people in this country who do not have the advantages that the likes of you and I have had is somehow being insular and provincial.
And I challenge that. Loving your neighbor is a good principle to live by. An understanding of the world can start with understanding the neighbourhood and place you live in. It's not either/or.
Many Corbynistas don't really understand how real progress is made - through commitment and hard work. They prefer to spray money around in the hope that it can be afforded. Socialism only survives in police states, opposition cannot be tolerated.
There are too many people who think that caring about people in this country who do not have the advantages that the likes of you and I have had is somehow being insular and provincial.
Snip
You understate the case. It isn't just caring about such people which is insular and provincial, so is failure to denounce them in explicit terms as ignorant, xenophobic bigots if they dare to express any concern about excessive immigration diluting beyond what it will stand their access to things like housing, healthcare and education which the rich buy privately. Ignore the fact that many of the poor expressing these fears are of ethnic minorities and are the children of immigrants, and that the victims of excess immigration are also, disproportionately, immigrants themselves, like the inhabitants of Grenfell Tower.
Comments
Now it's an email proof.
Numpty
This is the full resume of the bloke and why he can't be taken seriously:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/07/stop-taking-richard-painter-seriously-given-history-of-outlandish-statements-and-treason-accusations/
Maybe in a weeks time he will claim his Twitter account was hacked.
Did you type it in invisible ink?
How, specifically?
An aristocrat who wrote an online post offering £5,000 for businesswoman Gina Miller to be run over, has been found guilty of two charges of malicious communications.
Rhodri Colwyn Philipps, 50, the 4th Viscount St Davids, wrote the message four days after Ms Miller won a Brexit legal challenge against the government.
Chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said she had "no doubt it was menacing".
Philipps, who called his comments "satire", faces a custodial sentence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40574754
There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.
But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.
In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.
The reality is that he worked for George Bush Jr as an ethic lawyer and is a lifelong republican.
Trans: Pence wants to take over when Trump is impeached
It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.
Didn't see much in the markets that appealed. Perhaps the most intriguing was Ricciardo podium 3.5. He's had his best run of podium finishes in a row (five consecutive).
Anyway, I'm off.
There is a real problem of sovereignty and jurisdiction.
Edit. The UK position so far is we don't need any supranational legal recourse to regulate the agreements. The EU won't accept that.
Good evening, everyone.
There's also credible rumours around of a London consortium proposing the staging of a street race in the Docklands area.
For these in central London tomorrow, there will an F1 exhibition in Trafalgar Square, with the cars running down Whitehall in the evening which is definitely going to be worth watching.
for a judgement on the terms of the EU settled status agreement as they apply to him under current UK proposals. However a UK citizen in the EU could apply to the ECJ.
If you're unable to do anything than spew out irrelevancies in the hope of distracting from your chosen idol's manifest and multiple inadequacies, kindly do not waste my time.
New Labour came into existence to win such seats, Tories should thank their lucky stars UNS broke down during this election.
At the minute, it seems like we could not negotiate our way out of a wet paper bag.
Which is why so many people hope/expect it will happen. But as the EU almost certainly won't go away in the near future, we have a problem. A problem that can only be solved by full membership of the EU. (I know I am arguing for the EEA in the circumstances we are in, but it isn't really a solution in that sense)
Meanwhile, my original point remains. The Conservative government we all labour under is pursuing an extreme Brexit. Unsurprisingly, those who are out of sympathy with that vision are exploring other voting options. No amount of chaff from dimwitted partisans can conceal that.
I had you down as well past your teens.....
What, of course, I should have said is:
The UK as a whole is a net contributor to EU coffers
The ECJ in the EU and
The ECJ in the UK?
And I'm sure they wouldn't want one with us.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula-1/f1-considering-east-london-race-10774343
Corbyn has impressed me for the first time ever.
Many southern states still live with the legacy of white supremacist policy.
In Florida for example a third of the black population are disenfranchised. Disgusting.
In the U.K we get outraged bu an MP saying an outdated phrase with racist language there they don't bat an eyelid at the legacy of continued blatant black discrimination throughout every sphere of life. From the justice system to politics to economics etc.
Imagine this happened in the U.K as happend in North Carolina, today......actually don't because it wouldn't.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/
Apologies for the length of my reply and in 2 parts because of it.
PART 1
But I think the "citizens of nowhere" quote has also been, to some extent, misinterpreted.
This is the relevant bit of the speech:-
"Yet within our society today, we see division and unfairness all around. Between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation. Between the wealth of London and the rest of the country.
But perhaps most of all, between the rich, the successful and the powerful - and their fellow citizens.
.......
That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.
That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.
That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.
But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…
An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…
A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…
A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…
.....This can’t go on anymore."
The examples she quotes are ones where I think the Tories do have a point - that people who are well off in this society and as a result of the hard work of all of us, of people who are much less well off, do - IMO - owe an obligation to those around us, to pay tax, to treat staff well, to contribute and not merely to treat a country as a place where you make your money without any social, legal or moral obligations to that country and the people in it.
There has, I think, been an unwelcome development in recent years of a sort of Richistan where rich people interact only with each other and treat the rest of us as somehow less important, as if money is the only thing that matters. And I think - I hope - you would agree that the value of a person is more, much more, than their wealth. Society exists and society matters. And it matters that all of us contribute to the society in which we live, not try and shut ourselves off, insulated by wealth.
This feeling that too many of the rich see themselves as a class apart from the rest is one reason why Corbyn has been as successful as he has been. He has a point that the levels of inequality and a sort of F*** You mentality to the less well off are inimical to a fair society. May correctly identified the same sickness at the heart of modern day capitalism.
Where you have a point is in criticizing the implication that if you are interested in the world beyond your borders you are somehow not a good citizen of the country you live in. That is a false dichotomy.
But it is also fair to say that there are some who seem so interested in the wider world and in being part of it and in glorying in this that they can sometimes give the very strong impression that they don't care at all about people around them, their immediate neighbours, the very people on whom they depend for their lifestyle. It's like those who emote about the poor in far off places and hold lavish charity balls for them but do nothing about paying decent wages to the cleaners in their own places of work and won't even speak to them when they see them.
There are too many Mrs Jellabys around. There are too many people who think that caring about people in this country who do not have the advantages that the likes of you and I have had is somehow being insular and provincial.
And I challenge that. Loving your neighbor is a good principle to live by. An understanding of the world can start with understanding the neighbourhood and place you live in. It's not either/or.
Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first
....negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single market and the Customs Union
Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_North_Carolina
Requires improvement...
Take that, PB SJWs!!!
She is, however, becoming an expert at describing and showing she understands a problem, without demonstrating any insight, drive or inclination to do anything concrete about it, or even of knowing what might be done. After a year in the job it is about time she put up, or shut up.
NEW THREAD