Of course, the extreme Brexiteers like Fraser hate him. He is putting his country first. It's nice to have one member of the cabinet doing this.
Could be worse. Corbyn could somehow have squeaked a win and we would have Abbott, Thornberry and Macdonnell in charge, carefully putting the country last.
Extraordinarily, pound for pound the Labour front bench is about on the same level as the Tory cabinet. That's how bad this Tory cabinet is.
I would certainly take Thornberry over Boris, Starmer over Davis, Ashworth over Hunt and Rayner over Greening, McDonald over Grayling, and can't see much between most of the rest. Though Hammond is certainly more reassuring than McDonnell.
Rayner and Ashworth? Good grief man. You've started drinking the Corbyn kool-aid...
Greening and Hunt have been cabinet ministers for years; the latter has survived (more than?) half of his producer interests hating his guts. What on earth have Ashworth and Rayner done apart from moan?
They haven't caused the damage Hunt and Greening have.
No - they'd cause damage to the service the public receive, because they're obsessed with producer interest.
Meanwhile in the real world both the NHS and public education are at breaking point, entirely dependent on the goodwill and dedication of overworked, undervalued staff to keep them from total collapse.
NHS in crisis is like some dire daytime drama that won't go away and is on series 28.
'Beginning to wonder if wolf is being cried? You won't be alone!. Tune in to NHS in crisis at 11.35 today'
I can only comment on my personal experience, but from what I see of the ambulance service, they are at breaking point. We regularly beat them to incidents, and they often turn up flustered and without basic equipment such as longboards, which they've used on a previous job and not had a chance to restock. As for my brigade, we only struggle through because we get by on overtime. Some of my colleagues are getting 2 days a week overtime. I personally think the FBU should grow a pair and call an overtime ban, to bring it all crashing down. We've cut so much in my brigade that we struggle to cope, and we will come unstuck at some point.
Kavanah and Oborne - what a pair of clowns. Kavanah voiced astonishment when Jeremy Clarkson backed Remain, although everyone else had known for years he was a Euro-enthusiast; Oborne predicted that Ming Campbell's leadership would prove 'lethal' to the Tories. If that's the best the eurosceptic Right can put up, then the fabulous Phil's prospect will just keep soaring.
Of course, the extreme Brexiteers like Fraser hate him. He is putting his country first. It's nice to have one member of the cabinet doing this.
Could be worse. Corbyn could somehow have squeaked a win and we would have Abbott, Thornberry and Macdonnell in charge, carefully putting the country last.
That would have been better for the Conservative Party, and worse for Labour?
The Nation? Not sure. It's fecked anyway.
And there we have the crux of it. Neither Leave nor Remain offer a positive vision of the future. It's just a debate on the degree to which we are fucked.
It's more a case of the damage having been done it will be very hard to undo.
The lemmings have leapt over the cliff. The more positive amongst them are eyeing the better places to land.
Trouble is there's the ocean at the bottom of the cliff. Could try swimming to Norway I suppose.
Hammond gets both barrels (rightly so) from Fraser Nelson. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/philip-hammond-creates-a-one-man-cabinet-split-over-brexit/ "Leaving Philip Hammond in charge of the government was always going to be a risk because of his habit of putting his foot in it." "The UK is engaged in negotiations with the European Union – so message discipline is vital. As acting Prime Minister, it’s Hammond’s job to maintain that message discipline, rather than break it. " " So when he told the French that he “hears it said” that the UK was considering cutting taxes and regulation to be all competitive he was presumably referring to himself. It’s one thing for Cabinet members to contradict each other, but Hammond is taking the art of the Tory rift up a level – and sniping at himself."
Hammond is taking advantage of the old saying: when there is a vacuum, fill it. He is announcing "decisions": 3 year transition, UK will look hardly any different, one day into Brexit. He is basically daring someone to contradict him. People might even get used to it. A Labour Party policy relaxation could be the game-changer.
Yes but Hammond is contradicting his own earlier statements and sniping at himself. Hapless Hammond? Hopeless Hammond? Or just plain shite?
Hammond is taking advantage of the old saying: when there is a vacuum, fill it. He is announcing "decisions": 3 year transition, UK will look hardly any different, one day into Brexit. He is basically daring someone to contradict him. People might even get used to it. A Labour Party policy relaxation could be the game-changer.
Yes but Hammond is contradicting his own earlier statements and sniping at himself. Hapless Hammond? Hopeless Hammond? Or just plain shite?
His previous statement was in support of the Lancaster House speech. He's now buried that approach.
Mr. Quidder, another referendum/General Election would be a politically acceptable way to halt/reverse our departure.
It would, of course, need the EU to play ball. Given the concerns being expressed about the chances of negotiating a deal, I can't see how we can be expected to negotiate two deals for the electorate to choose between.
Staying in would not need much negotiation unless after 29th March 2019.
Hammond is taking advantage of the old saying: when there is a vacuum, fill it. He is announcing "decisions": 3 year transition, UK will look hardly any different, one day into Brexit. He is basically daring someone to contradict him. People might even get used to it. A Labour Party policy relaxation could be the game-changer.
Yes but Hammond is contradicting his own earlier statements and sniping at himself. Hapless Hammond? Hopeless Hammond? Or just plain shite?
He thinks if he causes enough instability TM will fall and he can become PM...
I think he's forgotten that the 1922 has given Theresa permission to sack anybody she likes if they are making the government unstable.
Hammond is taking advantage of the old saying: when there is a vacuum, fill it. He is announcing "decisions": 3 year transition, UK will look hardly any different, one day into Brexit. He is basically daring someone to contradict him. People might even get used to it. A Labour Party policy relaxation could be the game-changer.
Yes but Hammond is contradicting his own earlier statements and sniping at himself. Hapless Hammond? Hopeless Hammond? Or just plain shite?
He thinks if he causes enough instability TM will fall and he can become PM...
I think he's forgotten that the 1922 has given Theresa permission to sack anybody she likes if they are making the government unstable.
She's waiting to see who contradicts Hammond, and then she will sack them.
No, he acting absolutely against the national interest.
Even if you agree with what he is saying, it is an absolute disgrace the way he is going about it. Negotiations with the EU depend on a united front and, specifically, the EU believing that the UK will walk away if the deal is unacceptable. This is the mistake that Cameron made and May was always quite right to make this clear.
The other critical risk for the UK is the EU playing for time - when we get close to the end they will feel they can extort a deal because we won't risk the 'cliff edge'. The UK should not negotiate past May 2018 unless there is a clear deal coming together because it does not give us time to prepare in case there is no acceptable deal.
What the UK cannot have is no clear FTA agreed, only a 'transitional road to nowhere' where only the transition is agreed before Brexit. In that case, we will be at the mercy of the EU for years. If there is an agreed deal as part of the Brexit process, a transition period might make sense, but that is something to discuss at that time. Bringing it up now encourages the EU to play for time and not negotiate the FTA seriously.
Hammond is undermining the entire negotiation strategy, not for the national interest, but to bolster his own position. There can and should be disagreements in the Cabinet, but once a position is agreed everyone has to get on board and leave it to Davis and May. Hammond has no role in the negotiation.
Cabinet government cannot survive if one of the members wants to run his own strategy. She delivered the ultimatum that Cabinet members had to behave, and Hammond has played up immediately. I now believe that May will have no choice but to dismiss Hammond if she wants to survive.
Hammond is the only grown-up in the room, so it's not surprising he is acting in the way that he is. Almost alone among the cabinet he is putting the country first. No wonder the Tory right detests him.
No-one believes the UK will walk away. They never have. As for a transition deal, the UK has raised this possibility, not the EU27. All they have said is that they will not agree one if there is no final destination set out.
There can be no "transition" unless we know where we are going to. Transition refers to time, not situation.
Hammond is taking advantage of the old saying: when there is a vacuum, fill it. He is announcing "decisions": 3 year transition, UK will look hardly any different, one day into Brexit. He is basically daring someone to contradict him. People might even get used to it. A Labour Party policy relaxation could be the game-changer.
Yes but Hammond is contradicting his own earlier statements and sniping at himself. Hapless Hammond? Hopeless Hammond? Or just plain shite?
His previous statement was in support of the Lancaster House speech. He's now buried that approach.
It is a bit more than that. He quotes himself in the third person. He “hears it said” that the UK was considering cutting taxes and regulation to be all competitive when he was the person (and only person) who said it!
But, if its in that day's brief from his civil servants, off he goes to trot out the words.
Hammond is taking advantage of the old saying: when there is a vacuum, fill it. He is announcing "decisions": 3 year transition, UK will look hardly any different, one day into Brexit. He is basically daring someone to contradict him. People might even get used to it. A Labour Party policy relaxation could be the game-changer.
Yes but Hammond is contradicting his own earlier statements and sniping at himself. Hapless Hammond? Hopeless Hammond? Or just plain shite?
He thinks if he causes enough instability TM will fall and he can become PM... I think he's forgotten that the 1922 has given Theresa permission to sack anybody she likes if they are making the government unstable.
If only. But she chose to put two Remainers in charge whilst she went away.
No, he acting absolutely against the national interest.
Even if you agree with what he is saying, it is an absolute disgrace the way he is going about it. Negotiations with the EU depend on a united front and, specifically, the EU believing that the UK will walk away if the deal is unacceptable. This is the mistake that Cameron made and May was always quite right to make this clear.
The other critical risk for the UK is the EU playing for time - when we get close to the end they will feel they can extort a deal because we won't risk the 'cliff edge'. The UK should not negotiate past May 2018 unless there is a clear deal coming together because it does not give us time to prepare in case there is no acceptable deal.
What the UK cannot have is no clear FTA agreed, only a 'transitional road to nowhere' where only the transition is agreed before Brexit. In that case, we will be at the mercy of the EU for years. If there is an agreed deal as part of the Brexit process, a transition period might make sense, but that is something to discuss at that time. Bringing it up now encourages the EU to play for time and not negotiate the FTA seriously.
Hammond is undermining the entire negotiation strategy, not for the national interest, but to bolster his own position. There can and should be disagreements in the Cabinet, but once a position is agreed everyone has to get on board and leave it to Davis and May. Hammond has no role in the negotiation.
Cabinet government cannot survive if one of the members wants to run his own strategy. She delivered the ultimatum that Cabinet members had to behave, and Hammond has played up immediately. I now believe that May will have no choice but to dismiss Hammond if she wants to survive.
Hammond is the only grown-up in the room, so it's not surprising he is acting in the way that he is. Almost alone among the cabinet he is putting the country first. No wonder the Tory right detests him.
No-one believes the UK will walk away. They never have. As for a transition deal, the UK has raised this possibility, not the EU27. All they have said is that they will not agree one if there is no final destination set out.
There can be no "transition" unless we know where we are going to. Transition refers to time, not situation.
Of course, the extreme Brexiteers like Fraser hate him. He is putting his country first. It's nice to have one member of the cabinet doing this.
Could be worse. Corbyn could somehow have squeaked a win and we would have Abbott, Thornberry and Macdonnell in charge, carefully putting the country last.
That would have been better for the Conservative Party, and worse for Labour?
The Nation? Not sure. It's fecked anyway.
And there we have the crux of it. Neither Leave nor Remain offer a positive vision of the future. It's just a debate on the degree to which we are fucked.
It's more a case of the damage having been done it will be very hard to undo.
The lemmings have leapt over the cliff. The more positive amongst them are eyeing the better places to land.
We’ve indicated our intention to Leave. We haven’t actually left yet. Reason could still prevail.
Another person who hasn't thought through the consequences of ignoring democracy.
So the result of another referendum does not count ? Only the result of one referendum can count, that of 23rd June 2016.
No, he acting absolutely against the national interest.
Even if you agree with what he is saying, it is an absolute disgrace the way he is going about it. Negotiations with the EU depend on a united front and, specifically, the EU believing that the UK will walk away if the deal is unacceptable. This is the mistake that Cameron made and May was always quite right to make this clear.
The other critical risk for the UK is the EU playing for time - when we get close to the end they will feel they can extort a deal because we won't risk the 'cliff edge'. The UK should not negotiate past May 2018 unless there is a clear deal coming together because it does not give us time to prepare in case there is no acceptable deal.
What the UK cannot have is no clear FTA agreed, only a 'transitional road to nowhere' where only the transition is agreed before Brexit. In that case, we will be at the mercy of the EU for years. If there is an agreed deal as part of the Brexit process, a transition period might make sense, but that is something to discuss at that time. Bringing it up now encourages the EU to play for time and not negotiate the FTA seriously.
Hammond is undermining the entire negotiation strategy, not for the national interest, but to bolster his own position. There can and should be disagreements in the Cabinet, but once a position is agreed everyone has to get on board and leave it to Davis and May. Hammond has no role in the negotiation.
Cabinet government cannot survive if one of the members wants to run his own strategy. She delivered the ultimatum that Cabinet members had to behave, and Hammond has played up immediately. I now believe that May will have no choice but to dismiss Hammond if she wants to survive.
Hammond is the only grown-up in the room, so it's not surprising he is acting in the way that he is. Almost alone among the cabinet he is putting the country first. No wonder the Tory right detests him.
No-one believes the UK will walk away. They never have. As for a transition deal, the UK has raised this possibility, not the EU27. All they have said is that they will not agree one if there is no final destination set out.
There can be no "transition" unless we know where we are going to. Transition refers to time, not situation.
We're going OUT. Woohoo!
Look out for two signs: Road Ahead Closed, Diversion !
Hammond is a anti free market, corporatist buffoon who is in a minority of 1 who think he should be PM. His unpopularity and ability is overrated in the betting.
Agreed. Remainers are projecting on to him the successs they want him to have.
He is clearly isolated, and unlikely to be given a position in any subsequent government.
He is the new Ken Clarke - wet and Europhillic enough for the lefties to damn with faint praise.
Another dreary Brextremist ready to let the country go to hell.
Another dreary Remaniac. Still bitter about the referendum result and unwilling to accept a democratic decision
Of course, the extreme Brexiteers like Fraser hate him. He is putting his country first. It's nice to have one member of the cabinet doing this.
Could be worse. Corbyn could somehow have squeaked a win and we would have Abbott, Thornberry and Macdonnell in charge, carefully putting the country last.
Extraordinarily, pound for pound the Labour front bench is about on the same level as the Tory cabinet. That's how bad this Tory cabinet is.
I would certainly take Thornberry over Boris, Starmer over Davis, Ashworth over Hunt and Rayner over Greening, McDonald over Grayling, and can't see much between most of the rest. Though Hammond is certainly more reassuring than McDonnell.
Rayner over Greening - no. She is a deeply unpleasant and very stupid woman who takes the unedifying abuse about her accent to hide the vacuity of what she is actually saying.
Greening is weak and ineffectual. Rayner is a more malicious and less intelligent version of Gove. Her policies would, as I have pointed out many times, have pushed the entire state education system from crisis to total collapse in twelve months.
Thornberry still insists she was a Colonel in the British Army. She knows this is not true and yet she persists with it. She even knows it's a crime to say it, yet she doesn't care. Her over Boris - not sure I'd go that far. Macdonald I know nothing about, Starmer I intensely distrust for other reasons which we needn't go into here as I can't prove them.
Ashworth I entirely agree with.
But to suggest Corbyn's shadow cabinet is stronger than or even equal to May's cabinet is to go much too far. A case could be made that there should be a stronger shadow cabinet - the likes of Cooper, Benn, Leslie, even Creagh (never thought I'd see myself write that) languishing on the back benches could be a far more formidable opposition and might even be in government now. But this shower - forget it.
A Conservative poster casting aspersions on the Shadow Cabinet is chucking around stones in an extremely glassy house.
I'm not a Conservative.
When someone talks, acts like a Conservative, he is a ...............
Of course, the extreme Brexiteers like Fraser hate him. He is putting his country first. It's nice to have one member of the cabinet doing this.
Could be worse. Corbyn could somehow have squeaked a win and we would have Abbott, Thornberry and Macdonnell in charge, carefully putting the country last.
That would have been better for the Conservative Party, and worse for Labour?
The Nation? Not sure. It's fecked anyway.
And there we have the crux of it. Neither Leave nor Remain offer a positive vision of the future. It's just a debate on the degree to which we are fucked.
It's more a case of the damage having been done it will be very hard to undo.
The lemmings have leapt over the cliff. The more positive amongst them are eyeing the better places to land.
We’ve indicated our intention to Leave. We haven’t actually left yet. Reason could still prevail.
Reason is always preferable to the opposite but my serious point is that even it were possible to throw Brexit into reverse (and I don't think it is) the Nation has already been seriously damaged, so there would be no point.
It really would be like the lemmings having second thoughts half-way through their descent.
Of course, the extreme Brexiteers like Fraser hate him. He is putting his country first. It's nice to have one member of the cabinet doing this.
Could be worse. Corbyn could somehow have squeaked a win and we would have Abbott, Thornberry and Macdonnell in charge, carefully putting the country last.
That would have been better for the Conservative Party, and worse for Labour?
The Nation? Not sure. It's fecked anyway.
And there we have the crux of it. Neither Leave nor Remain offer a positive vision of the future. It's just a debate on the degree to which we are fucked.
It's more a case of the damage having been done it will be very hard to undo.
The lemmings have leapt over the cliff. The more positive amongst them are eyeing the better places to land.
We’ve indicated our intention to Leave. We haven’t actually left yet. Reason could still prevail.
Reason is always preferable to the opposite but my serious point is that even it were possible to throw Brexit into reverse (and I don't think it is) the Nation has already been seriously damaged, so there would be no point.
It really would be like the lemmings having second thoughts half-way through their descent.
Just as you only find out what some assets are worth by a process of price discovery when you put them on the market, Brexit is a process of reality discovery for British Euroscepticism. The country is learning a valuable lesson.
It's worth it, but the ultimate destination is not one that any of the Brexiteers reckoned with.
A Conservative poster casting aspersions on the Shadow Cabinet is chucking around stones in an extremely glassy house.
I'm not a Conservative.
Well if the cap doesn't fit you have no need to wear it.
Don't really understand that comment. You made a wrong assumption. Given how heavily critical I am of Labour, it's not a wholly unreasonable assumption, but it's wrong nevertheless. You then make some vague and anodyne comment that fails to address your error.
Just for the record and to clarify, the only party to finish in the top three in terms of voteshare that I have never voted for is UKIP. I have also voted for Plaid Cymru (obviously only when I lived in Wales - they don't stand in Cannock).
I voted Conservative this time around. No way would I vote for somebody as personally loathsome as Corbyn, especially given he also had such stupid and disastrous policies. But had Yvette Cooper been leading, I would have cheerfully voted Labour as the local candidate - Paul Dadge - was highly impressive.
And you may notice I considered the weaknesses of the Conservative ministers too, before concluding that in most cases and with the dazzling exception of the highly impressive Ashworth compared to the egregious Hunt they were less serious than those of their Labour counterparts.
I do hope that helps.
The comment applied to Conservative posters. and also by implication to conservative ones. If you are neither, it doesn't apply to you. What is there to not understand?
Of course if you post like a Conservative/conservative poster, you cannot be surprised if you are mistaken for one.
No, he acting absolutely against the national interest.
Even if you agree with what he is saying, it is an absolute disgrace the way he is going about it. Negotiations with the EU depend on a united front and, specifically, the EU believing that the UK will walk away if the deal is unacceptable.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
Let's say you are my old shoes. I was a partner at a mid sized asset management firm, with a large French retail client base. We benefited hugely from the ability to sell direct to French savers, without the need for any French presence (other than occasional lunches).
If there is a deal with regulatory equivalence - not passporting - then we're in good shape. Sure, we probably need to set up an EU entity, but I, or one of my colleagues, could go to France and talk to customers about their investments.
If there's no deal, then we'd have been in serious trouble. We would need a much more significant EU presence than just a brass plate regulated entity in Dublin or Luxembourg.
Just as a Nigerian fund mangement organisation can't sell direct to UK consumers, we wouldn't be able to sell direct to EU consumers.
The best way to put pressure on the EU is for Dr Liam Fox to do his job. The better our relations with non-EU countries, the less need we have for a deal with the EU. So, a deal which would allow UK fund management companies to sell to consumers in the US, would be a good start. Or, something that replicates the existing agreements the EU has with South Korea for example.
As a hard line brexiteer even I can see the advantage of a transition period but not 3 years maybe 12 months as anything else means the remoaners will have an opening to try and circumvent the result.
Mr. Paris, they did show that, but I was thinking of the police (on motorbikes) shooting (minor wound, thankfully) the press team's Venezuelan producer, even though they had their hands up and were clearly members of the press.
The best way to put pressure on the EU is for Dr Liam Fox to do his job. The better our relations with non-EU countries, the less need we have for a deal with the EU. So, a deal which would allow UK fund management companies to sell to consumers in the US, would be a good start. Or, something that replicates the existing agreements the EU has with South Korea for example.
Imagine we were talking about Calexit. Do you think Washington would be a powerless bystander in their talks with third countries?
A Conservative poster casting aspersions on the Shadow Cabinet is chucking around stones in an extremely glassy house.
I'm not a Conservative.
Well if the cap doesn't fit you have no need to wear it.
Don't really understand that comment. You made a wrong assumption. Given how heavily critical I am of Labour, it's not a wholly unreasonable assumption, but it's wrong nevertheless. You then make some vague and anodyne comment that fails to address your error.
Just for the record and to clarify, the only party to finish in the top three in terms of voteshare that I have never voted for is UKIP. I have also voted for Plaid Cymru (obviously only when I lived in Wales - they don't stand in Cannock).
I voted Conservative this time around. No way would I vote for somebody as personally loathsome as Corbyn, especially given he also had such stupid and disastrous policies. But had Yvette Cooper been leading, I would have cheerfully voted Labour as the local candidate - Paul Dadge - was highly impressive.
And you may notice I considered the weaknesses of the Conservative ministers too, before concluding that in most cases and with the dazzling exception of the highly impressive Ashworth compared to the egregious Hunt they were less serious than those of their Labour counterparts.
I do hope that helps.
The comment applied to Conservative posters. and also by implication to conservative ones. If you are neither, it doesn't apply to you. What is there to not understand?
Of course if you post like a Conservative/conservative poster, you cannot be surprised if you are mistaken for one.
Does that help?
Dislike of Labour does not imply Conservative or even conservative...
Mr. Glenn, California would be leaving a country. We're leaving a political bloc that, pre-referendum, we were told didn't have its tentacles wrapped around us. It can't be both.
Of course, the extreme Brexiteers like Fraser hate him. He is putting his country first. It's nice to have one member of the cabinet doing this.
Could be worse. Corbyn could somehow have squeaked a win and we would have Abbott, Thornberry and Macdonnell in charge, carefully putting the country last.
That would have been better for the Conservative Party, and worse for Labour?
The Nation? Not sure. It's fecked anyway.
And there we have the crux of it. Neither Leave nor Remain offer a positive vision of the future. It's just a debate on the degree to which we are fucked.
It's more a case of the damage having been done it will be very hard to undo.
The lemmings have leapt over the cliff. The more positive amongst them are eyeing the better places to land.
We’ve indicated our intention to Leave. We haven’t actually left yet. Reason could still prevail.
Another person who hasn't thought through the consequences of ignoring democracy.
Well, some time ago we made a democratic decision to join. By quite a decent margin. We consistently elected leaders who went about helping to build the EU. Now we’ve made another decison, by quite a small majority this time, to leave. When we really see what’s involved, surely it would be democratic to let us, the electorate, have another look.
Given those leaders consistently refused to let us have a vote to Leave for 40 years perhaps that should be the timescale for the next referendum
Mr. Glenn, California would be leaving a country. We're leaving a political bloc that, pre-referendum, we were told didn't have its tentacles wrapped around us. It can't be both.
In terms of trade negotiations, which is Liam Fox's job, the situations are equivalent.
Brexiteers may argue that they don't want to be part of a political union, but many of them fail to realise that for 44 years, they have been.
Isn't it funny how people with extreme views, whether right or left, so often seem assume they are in the majority!
Quite so. Whilst in fact it is the moderate, sensible people in the middle who form the majority. People like, well, me!
Though it isn`t sensible of them to go off and vote for one of the extremist groups, just because they don`t like the other one. The best way forward is to fall in behind Uncle Vince.
No, he acting absolutely against the national interest.
Even if you agree with what he is saying, it is an absolute disgrace the way he is going about it. Negotiations with the EU depend on a united front and, specifically, the EU believing that the UK will walk away if the deal is unacceptable.
.......The best way to put pressure on the EU is for Dr Liam Fox to do his job. The better our relations with non-EU countries, the less need we have for a deal with the EU. So, a deal which would allow UK fund management companies to sell to consumers in the US, would be a good start. Or, something that replicates the existing agreements the EU has with South Korea for example.
Agreed. But it also needs Fox to be supported by the rest and the Treasury have been unhelpful.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
Mr. Glenn, you don't think political encroachment has increased from the year of our joining to 2016?
Not to mention, as I said the other day, that increasing the membership so drastically has necessarily led to centralisation of power at the expense of member states. Did we not, at Lisbon, have Brown throw away our vetoes?
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
We joined a political union.
I guess that's why they called it the European Economic Community
That was one of the three communities that we joined along with the ECSC and Euratom. They had merged long before we joined. That's why the famous act of parliament is called the European Communities Act.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
@SkyNewsBreak: A spokesman for the Prime Minister Theresa May says the free movement of EU citizens to Britain will end in March 2019
Surely, the logistics for that to be implemented has to be in place before 29th March 2019 . That should also include the border between Northern Ireland and the EU.
Just seen a bit of Sky News. Venezuela's looking bloody ugly.
that's Jezzazuela to you
CCHQ will be creaming themselves but whether any voters connect Venezuela and Corbyn is open to doubt. A great deal of doubt.
most people wont give a toss
How many can name [ or spell ] Venezuela ? How many know where it is ? Do we even have a Premier League footballer from there ? If not, it does not count.
Surely, the logistics for that to be implemented has to be in place before 29th March 2019 . That should also include the border between Northern Ireland and the EU.
As with every Brexit "clarification" this has made it less clear what is happening
@steve_hawkes: No.10 admits free movement will technically end - but that "it will take time" for numbers to fall. Language now all about "smooth Brexit"
@steve_hawkes: No.10 backs Hammond - adds that Theresa May even said she wanted to avoid a cliff edge in the Lancaster House speech. Sig shift
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
@SkyNewsBreak: A spokesman for the Prime Minister Theresa May says the free movement of EU citizens to Britain will end in March 2019
Surely, the logistics for that to be implemented has to be in place before 29th March 2019 . That should also include the border between Northern Ireland and the EU.
We should suggest to the Irish that that border should be at Cork and Roslare.
Surely, the logistics for that to be implemented has to be in place before 29th March 2019 . That should also include the border between Northern Ireland and the EU.
As with every Brexit "clarification" this has made it less clear what is happening
@steve_hawkes: No.10 admits free movement will technically end - but that "it will take time" for numbers to fall. Language now all about "smooth Brexit"
@steve_hawkes: No.10 backs Hammond - adds that Theresa May even said she wanted to avoid a cliff edge in the Lancaster House speech. Sig shift
Enough of this rubbish!
Let's get a government in that knows what the hell they're doing.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
The Treaty of Utrecht must trump it in terms of its personal impact on your life?
Mr. Surbiton, I doubt it'll have resonance when it comes to domestic politics, but right now it is the top news story so there'll be some cut-through there.
Edited extra bit: that said, it doesn't make the BBC News homepage, which I find staggering.
@SkyNewsBreak: A spokesman for the Prime Minister Theresa May says the free movement of EU citizens to Britain will end in March 2019
Surely, the logistics for that to be implemented has to be in place before 29th March 2019 . That should also include the border between Northern Ireland and the EU.
Surely, the logistics for that to be implemented has to be in place before 29th March 2019 . That should also include the border between Northern Ireland and the EU.
As with every Brexit "clarification" this has made it less clear what is happening
@steve_hawkes: No.10 admits free movement will technically end - but that "it will take time" for numbers to fall. Language now all about "smooth Brexit"
@steve_hawkes: No.10 backs Hammond - adds that Theresa May even said she wanted to avoid a cliff edge in the Lancaster House speech. Sig shift
Enough of this rubbish!
Let's get a government in that knows what the hell they're doing.
HMQ - Send for Jezza!
Surely you mean Jimmy? Its a disgrace he hasn't bowled this morning.
Just seen a bit of Sky News. Venezuela's looking bloody ugly.
that's Jezzazuela to you
CCHQ will be creaming themselves but whether any voters connect Venezuela and Corbyn is open to doubt. A great deal of doubt.
most people wont give a toss
How many can name [ or spell ] Venezuela ? How many know where it is ? Do we even have a Premier League footballer from there ? If not, it does not count.
Mr. Glenn, California would be leaving a country. We're leaving a political bloc that, pre-referendum, we were told didn't have its tentacles wrapped around us. It can't be both.
In terms of trade negotiations, which is Liam Fox's job, the situations are equivalent.
Brexiteers may argue that they don't want to be part of a political union, but many of them fail to realise that for 44 years, they have been.
That's oxymoronic: Brexiteers are almost entirely as such precisely because they do realise that.
They might not have realised, or believed, that was the case in 1975 because so many mixed messages were being given out and integration hadn't proceeded far enough to be noticeable.
Just seen a bit of Sky News. Venezuela's looking bloody ugly.
that's Jezzazuela to you
CCHQ will be creaming themselves but whether any voters connect Venezuela and Corbyn is open to doubt. A great deal of doubt.
most people wont give a toss
How many can name [ or spell ] Venezuela ? How many know where it is ? Do we even have a Premier League footballer from there ? If not, it does not count.
Just seen a bit of Sky News. Venezuela's looking bloody ugly.
that's Jezzazuela to you
CCHQ will be creaming themselves but whether any voters connect Venezuela and Corbyn is open to doubt. A great deal of doubt.
most people wont give a toss
How many can name [ or spell ] Venezuela ? How many know where it is ? Do we even have a Premier League footballer from there ? If not, it does not count.
Mr. Glenn, California would be leaving a country. We're leaving a political bloc that, pre-referendum, we were told didn't have its tentacles wrapped around us. It can't be both.
In terms of trade negotiations, which is Liam Fox's job, the situations are equivalent.
Brexiteers may argue that they don't want to be part of a political union, but many of them fail to realise that for 44 years, they have been.
That's oxymoronic: Brexiteers are almost entirely as such precisely because they do realise that.
They might not have realised, or believed, that was the case in 1975 because so many mixed messages were being given out and integration hadn't proceeded far enough to be noticeable.
Yet you still often hear arguments like, "We joined a trade bloc, not a political union," or, "If we don't leave now we'll be dragged into political union."
Sure some people get it, but I would guess most don't, hence their surprise at how complex leaving is proving to be. Many thought Brexit was a way to avoid something in the future that in reality happened before most of them were born; that we could carry on as before, but without 'meddling' from Brussels.
Mr. Glenn, California would be leaving a country. We're leaving a political bloc that, pre-referendum, we were told didn't have its tentacles wrapped around us. It can't be both.
In terms of trade negotiations, which is Liam Fox's job, the situations are equivalent.
Brexiteers may argue that they don't want to be part of a political union, but many of them fail to realise that for 44 years, they have been.
That's oxymoronic: Brexiteers are almost entirely as such precisely because they do realise that.
They might not have realised, or believed, that was the case in 1975 because so many mixed messages were being given out and integration hadn't proceeded far enough to be noticeable.
Yet you still often hear arguments like, "We joined a trade bloc, not a political union," or, "If we don't leave now we'll be dragged into political union."
Sure some people get it, but I would guess most don't, hence their surprise at how complex leaving is proving to be. Many thought Brexit was a way to avoid something in the future that in reality happened before most of them were born; that we could carry on as before, but without 'meddling' from Brussels.
That just shows people are now wise to its progressively political nature: it was less in the past, and will be more in the future.
Your problem isn't that. It's that you can't understand why people would object to it.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Thanks for giving me a good chuckle last night with your comments about Farron.
But, I had to explain my guffawing to my wife and what a purple-veined thermometer was.
@SkyNewsBreak: A spokesman for the Prime Minister Theresa May says the free movement of EU citizens to Britain will end in March 2019
Which presumably means that if she wants to go to Tuscany and Switzerland after then for her holidays, she'll just have to get a visa, just like the rest of us.
@SkyNewsBreak: A spokesman for the Prime Minister Theresa May says the free movement of EU citizens to Britain will end in March 2019
Which presumably means that if she wants to go to Tuscany and Switzerland after then for her holidays, she'll just have to get a visa, just like the rest of us.
Do you seriously envisage the tourist destinations of the EU agreeing to that? All those millions of Brits spending billions, having their travel impaired? Just another project fear forecast from the school of Nostrodamus.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Thanks for giving me a good chuckle last night with your comments about Farron. But, I had to explain my guffawing to my wife and what a purple-veined thermometer was.
But someone would have to explain what it really meant to Farron.
The comment applied to Conservative posters. and also by implication to conservative ones. If you are neither, it doesn't apply to you. What is there to not understand?
Of course if you post like a Conservative/conservative poster, you cannot be surprised if you are mistaken for one.
Does that help?
No, your original comment applied directly to me, and you appeared merely to be confused on the second one. I have always made it clear I am not a Conservative and I was pointing it out for you because I know you're not here often.
So i still think you're getting into an (avoidable) muddle.
I post anti-Labour but that's only because they're basically a bunch of deeply unpleasant people. That does I suppose make me a conservative by default given where I live.
I did enjoy Surbiton's post earlier though, given how agitated he gets whenever his tax status is raised...
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
The best way to put pressure on the EU is for Dr Liam Fox to do his job. The better our relations with non-EU countries, the less need we have for a deal with the EU. So, a deal which would allow UK fund management companies to sell to consumers in the US, would be a good start. Or, something that replicates the existing agreements the EU has with South Korea for example.
Imagine we were talking about Calexit. Do you think Washington would be a powerless bystander in their talks with third countries?
No, but since California cannot legally secede from the USA whereas we are specifically allowed to leave the EU the situation is slightly different.
If you doubt that please remember 11 states tried it in 1861. From absolutely no point of view was their departure a success.
@SkyNewsBreak: A spokesman for the Prime Minister Theresa May says the free movement of EU citizens to Britain will end in March 2019
Which presumably means that if she wants to go to Tuscany and Switzerland after then for her holidays, she'll just have to get a visa, just like the rest of us.
Do you seriously envisage the tourist destinations of the EU agreeing to that? All those millions of Brits spending billions, having their travel impaired? Just another project fear forecast from the school of Nostrodamus.
If the government is serious about ending freedom of movement and "taking back control of our borders" then of course that will have to happen. You can't control movement in and out of the country without a visa system. Most likely it would be some kind of visa waiver system like the US ESTA, with approval a quick online formality for law-abiding tourists and business travellers, however without such a system the referendum promises on immigration and border control will be impossible to fulfil.
@SkyNewsBreak: A spokesman for the Prime Minister Theresa May says the free movement of EU citizens to Britain will end in March 2019
Which presumably means that if she wants to go to Tuscany and Switzerland after then for her holidays, she'll just have to get a visa, just like the rest of us.
We don't require visas for Koreans to enter the UK, I somehow doubt we'll require it of the French. Ability to enter the UK as a tourist, is not the same as the right to permanently reside here.
@SkyNewsBreak: A spokesman for the Prime Minister Theresa May says the free movement of EU citizens to Britain will end in March 2019
Which presumably means that if she wants to go to Tuscany and Switzerland after then for her holidays, she'll just have to get a visa, just like the rest of us.
Do you seriously envisage the tourist destinations of the EU agreeing to that? All those millions of Brits spending billions, having their travel impaired? Just another project fear forecast from the school of Nostrodamus.
If the government is serious about ending freedom of movement and "taking back control of our borders" then of course that will have to happen. You can't control movement in and out of the country without a visa system. Most likely it would be some kind of visa waiver system like the US ESTA, designed to be of minimum hindrance to tourists and business travellers, but without it the referendum promises on immigration and border control will be impossible to fulfil.
So, Koreans will not require visas to visit the UK, but the French will? Rubbish.
@SkyNewsBreak: A spokesman for the Prime Minister Theresa May says the free movement of EU citizens to Britain will end in March 2019
Which presumably means that if she wants to go to Tuscany and Switzerland after then for her holidays, she'll just have to get a visa, just like the rest of us.
We don't require visas for Koreans to enter the UK, I somehow doubt we'll require it of the French. Ability to enter the UK as a tourist, is not the same as the right to permanently reside here.
Quite. People don't seem to realise the difference between tourism and freedom of movement; largely because the latter is a useful shorthand for 'freedom of permanent residence'.
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
He was clearly wrong on both counts: we have not ceased to be an independent European state and our history has not ended! It was scaremongering of the worst sort.
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Dear old Hugh.
Britain didn't have a thousand years of History.
In 1957 it had clocked exactly 250 years.
It's as well for him that Malcolm wasn't around in those days, or he would have been under sustained assault from ballistic turnips.
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Assuming that you agree with that sentiment, why on earth would you vote for Brexit 40-odd years later when the most likely outcome would be a demonstration of Gaitskell's point in the most brutally humiliating way? Another one seeking one last hurrah before finally giving up in a moment of national catharsis?
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Against that, the PM who took us in (in both senses ?) - "There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified." (Heath, Jan 1973)
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Dear old Hugh.
Britain didn't have a thousand years of History.
In 1957 it had clocked exactly 250 years.
It's as well for him that Malcolm wasn't around in those days, or he would have been under sustained assault from ballistic turnips.
One should always consult the small print when listening to politicians.
Comments
However, as a pro-Brexit Labourite, he's just about the last Tory I would want to see take over.
I want to see a proper Bexit, followed by a Labour victory in the next GE, and I think that Hammond would deny us of both of those outcomes.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/philip-hammond-creates-a-one-man-cabinet-split-over-brexit/
"Leaving Philip Hammond in charge of the government was always going to be a risk because of his habit of putting his foot in it."
"The UK is engaged in negotiations with the European Union – so message discipline is vital. As acting Prime Minister, it’s Hammond’s job to maintain that message discipline, rather than break it. "
" So when he told the French that he “hears it said” that the UK was considering cutting taxes and regulation to be all competitive he was presumably referring to himself. It’s one thing for Cabinet members to contradict each other, but Hammond is taking the art of the Tory rift up a level – and sniping at himself."
He is announcing "decisions": 3 year transition, UK will look hardly any different, one day into Brexit.
He is basically daring someone to contradict him. People might even get used to it. A Labour Party policy relaxation could be the game-changer.
Hapless Hammond? Hopeless Hammond? Or just plain shite?
I think he's forgotten that the 1922 has given Theresa permission to sack anybody she likes if they are making the government unstable.
http://www.theredcell.co.uk/uploads/9/6/4/0/96409902/the_tangled_web_-_eu_agencies_after_brexit.pdf
But, if its in that day's brief from his civil servants, off he goes to trot out the words.
It really would be like the lemmings having second thoughts half-way through their descent.
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/891937763062407168
What's the 'RH' of 'RHINO'?
It's worth it, but the ultimate destination is not one that any of the Brexiteers reckoned with.
http://news.sky.com/story/high-court-rejects-iraq-generals-bid-for-blair-war-prosecution-10968585
Shame.
Of course if you post like a Conservative/conservative poster, you cannot be surprised if you are mistaken for one.
Does that help?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/31/teenager-breaks-jacob-rees-moggs-record-longest-word-used-parliament/amp/
Let's say you are my old shoes. I was a partner at a mid sized asset management firm, with a large French retail client base. We benefited hugely from the ability to sell direct to French savers, without the need for any French presence (other than occasional lunches).
If there is a deal with regulatory equivalence - not passporting - then we're in good shape. Sure, we probably need to set up an EU entity, but I, or one of my colleagues, could go to France and talk to customers about their investments.
If there's no deal, then we'd have been in serious trouble. We would need a much more significant EU presence than just a brass plate regulated entity in Dublin or Luxembourg.
Just as a Nigerian fund mangement organisation can't sell direct to UK consumers, we wouldn't be able to sell direct to EU consumers.
The best way to put pressure on the EU is for Dr Liam Fox to do his job. The better our relations with non-EU countries, the less need we have for a deal with the EU. So, a deal which would allow UK fund management companies to sell to consumers in the US, would be a good start. Or, something that replicates the existing agreements the EU has with South Korea for example.
I wasn't sure quite what to expect, but an IED over my cornflakes wasn't in the top 5.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/eu-senkt-kreditzusagen-an-die-tuerkei-15129376.html
cant really see this ending well for either party
Brexiteers may argue that they don't want to be part of a political union, but many of them fail to realise that for 44 years, they have been.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
Not to mention, as I said the other day, that increasing the membership so drastically has necessarily led to centralisation of power at the expense of member states. Did we not, at Lisbon, have Brown throw away our vetoes?
Less of the "we", please.
I didn't have a vote.
@steve_hawkes: No.10 admits free movement will technically end - but that "it will take time" for numbers to fall. Language now all about "smooth Brexit"
@steve_hawkes: No.10 backs Hammond - adds that Theresa May even said she wanted to avoid a cliff edge in the Lancaster House speech. Sig shift
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Let's get a government in that knows what the hell they're doing.
HMQ - Send for Jezza!
Edited extra bit: that said, it doesn't make the BBC News homepage, which I find staggering.
Edit. Actually he has just come on. As you were.
They might not have realised, or believed, that was the case in 1975 because so many mixed messages were being given out and integration hadn't proceeded far enough to be noticeable.
Sure some people get it, but I would guess most don't, hence their surprise at how complex leaving is proving to be. Many thought Brexit was a way to avoid something in the future that in reality happened before most of them were born; that we could carry on as before, but without 'meddling' from Brussels.
Your problem isn't that. It's that you can't understand why people would object to it.
But, I had to explain my guffawing to my wife and what a purple-veined thermometer was.
So i still think you're getting into an (avoidable) muddle.
I post anti-Labour but that's only because they're basically a bunch of deeply unpleasant people. That does I suppose make me a conservative by default given where I live.
I did enjoy Surbiton's post earlier though, given how agitated he gets whenever his tax status is raised...
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
If you doubt that please remember 11 states tried it in 1861. From absolutely no point of view was their departure a success.
Rubbish.
Britain didn't have a thousand years of History.
In 1957 it had clocked exactly 250 years.
It's as well for him that Malcolm wasn't around in those days, or he would have been under sustained assault from ballistic turnips.
Childish, but excellent.
Edit - I do hope nobody's got money on the draw.
"There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified."
(Heath, Jan 1973)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlXFssBHnRE
(For the avoidance of confusion, I voted remain.)