It's remarkable how pbers are more interested in historical debates about statues than about neo-Nazis killing people.
Because we all agree that neo-Nazis (or anyone) killing people is a bad thing?
There's rather more to it than that.
The way in which extreme rightwing views have been allowed into the mainstream so that the weekend's events are now unsurprising is surely worth more discussion.
Brendan O'Neill doesn't half talk some shite. The idea that white supremacy is some new thing in America that is a reaction to divisive safe spacing liberal blah blah blah is such transparently obvious bollocks that I can't even begin to start taking it apart.
It defeats itself.
Just the left reaping what they have sowen, and they don't like it and like you are in denial.
Its a natural consequence of the BS the left have been propagating for decades, and finally the right have decided ok we'll play you at your game. Lefties are now crying foul now as their tactics are being used against them. The Trump presidency being one manifestation of this.
I don't like the results, but its amusing watching the Left & their establishment lose their collective minds.
Ok, so you are going for White Supremacism being a recent phenomena in America then?
It's remarkable how pbers are more interested in historical debates about statues than about neo-Nazis killing people.
Because we all agree that neo-Nazis (or anyone) killing people is a bad thing?
There's rather more to it than that.
The way in which extreme rightwing views have been allowed into the mainstream so that the weekend's events are now unsurprising is surely worth more discussion.
It's remarkable how pbers are more interested in historical debates about statues than about neo-Nazis killing people.
Because we all agree that neo-Nazis (or anyone) killing people is a bad thing?
There's rather more to it than that.
The way in which extreme rightwing views have been allowed into the mainstream so that the weekend's events are now unsurprising is surely worth more discussion.
Brendan O'Neill doesn't half talk some shite. The idea that white supremacy is some new thing in America that is a reaction to divisive safe spacing liberal blah blah blah is such transparently obvious bollocks that I can't even begin to start taking it apart.
It defeats itself.
Just the left reaping what they have sowen, and they don't like it and like you are in denial.
Its a natural consequence of the BS the left have been propagating for decades, and finally the right have decided ok we'll play you at your game. Lefties are now crying foul now as their tactics are being used against them. The Trump presidency being one manifestation of this.
I don't like the results, but its amusing watching the Left & their establishment lose their collective minds.
Yeah. No history of white supremacy in Virginia previously. If only they hadn't been inflamed by a thirty-something paralegal protesting at an invasion of her hometown by Nazis.
The PB apologists need to take a long look at themselves. There is no splitting the difference between murderer and victim.
Still waiting for someone to give a decent analysis of why an intelligent chap who is is an excellent communicator with well founded political beliefs shouldn't be Con leader.
"Cos he's posh n Brexit" is about it so far.
Because he looks like the sort of person who wears sock suspenders.
With such dazzling political insight it is no wonder Remainers lost the referendum.
Being white, male and posh is 3 strikes too many for some.
Face it if JRM was in the LDs he'd be a shoe in with that CV - although perhaps too young.
Nothing wrong with being white, male and posh. Though it's ironic that Dave's critics on the hard Right never shied away from using his poshness against him (price of milk etc.). Mogg's problem is that he seems to inhabit a pre-war pastoral English fantasy. It reminds me of Marie Antoinette pretending to be a shepherdess. Jezza will love it as it will make him look like a man of the people.
Jezza living in a cold war pastoral Soviet fantasy nearly won him the election.
Jacob Rees Mogg v Jeremy Corbyn would give you the choice of either returning to the 1950s or the 1970s
LibDem landslide?
Under FPTP probably not but such circumstances could see them again hold the balance of power in a hung parliament
It's remarkable how pbers are more interested in historical debates about statues than about neo-Nazis killing people.
Because we all agree that neo-Nazis (or anyone) killing people is a bad thing?
There's rather more to it than that.
The way in which extreme rightwing views have been allowed into the mainstream so that the weekend's events are now unsurprising is surely worth more discussion.
Brendan O'Neill doesn't half talk some shite. The idea that white supremacy is some new thing in America that is a reaction to divisive safe spacing liberal blah blah blah is such transparently obvious bollocks that I can't even begin to start taking it apart.
It defeats itself.
Just the left reaping what they have sowen, and they don't like it and like you are in denial.
Its a natural consequence of the BS the left have been propagating for decades, and finally the right have decided ok we'll play you at your game. Lefties are now crying foul now as their tactics are being used against them. The Trump presidency being one manifestation of this.
I don't like the results, but its amusing watching the Left & their establishment lose their collective minds.
Yeah. No history of white supremacy in Virginia previously. If only they hadn't been inflamed by a thirty-something paralegal protesting at an invasion of her hometown by Nazis.
The PB apologists need to take a long look at themselves. There is no splitting the difference between murderer and victim.
This video released by the US War Department in 1943 is doing the rounds of my facebook friends...
Finance minister Philip Hammond has suggested there could be little immediate change to immigration rules, saying the transition might last until 2022. Such arguments carry little sway outside London.
The only people I've seen pushing JRM are Corbyn fans trolling. Seems to be quite organised, there were a whole bundle of them started doing it at the same time.
In Europe, we tend to be a bit shocked at the type of arsenals allowed to US citizens by its government. In doing so, we are apt to forget the Nation's history and its right for self-determination. There are no votes in Gun Control in the USA. Nothing's going to change any time soon.
I don't dispute that citizens can be heavily armed, I simply think that the claim that the State Police are out-gunned is likely to be an exaggeration. American police have been given a huge amount of surplus military hardware, and are also recipients of billions of dollars of funding for equipment since the formation of the DHS. The ongoing militarization of American policing has been a hot topic for many years now.
I should think the US Police would be heavily armed, or 'militarised' as you put it.. Have you seen some of the weapons the civilians have?!
I would suggest this shows more clearly than any other statistic that the public's gut feeling is that Brexit is wrong and their anger, such as it is, is against a UK government who they believe forced them into voting for a self-destructive Brexit that the really didn't want.
Finance minister Philip Hammond has suggested there could be little immediate change to immigration rules, saying the transition might last until 2022. Such arguments carry little sway outside London.
""That's what's turned us: immigrants and what they get when they come over here," he said. "Of course it should stop. Blow the tunnel up as well.""
I'm not sure there is any version of Brexit that will satisfy people will views like this. Especially since earlier in the article:
"Despite a lower proportion of residents born outside Britain than the national average - at 10 percent of the Medway population compared with 14.5 percent across England - voters say immigration is the main issue that May must address."
The only people I've seen pushing JRM are Corbyn fans trolling. Seems to be quite organised, there were a whole bundle of them started doing it at the same time.
""That's what's turned us: immigrants and what they get when they come over here," he said. "Of course it should stop. Blow the tunnel up as well.""
I'm not sure there is any version of Brexit that will satisfy people will views like this. Especially since earlier in the article:
"Despite a lower proportion of residents born outside Britain than the national average - at 10 percent of the Medway population compared with 14.5 percent across England - voters say immigration is the main issue that May must address."
People with views like that need to be challenged, not pandered to. This is not a time for triangulation but for real leadership.
I would suggest this shows more clearly than any other statistic that the public's gut feeling is that Brexit is wrong and their anger, such as it is, is against a UK government who they believe forced them into voting for a self-destructive Brexit that the really didn't want.
I think the country is on the wrong track, but it has nothing to do with Brexit. And that selection of countries is hilarious.
I would suggest this shows more clearly than any other statistic that the public's gut feeling is that Brexit is wrong and their anger, such as it is, is against a UK government who they believe forced them into voting for a self-destructive Brexit that the really didn't want.
It could also reflect people wanting Brexit and feeling that there'll be a stitch-up. It could also reflect people's views of the inconclusive 2017 election (May won, by any normal criteria, but also, clearly, didn't).
I would suggest this shows more clearly than any other statistic that the public's gut feeling is that Brexit is wrong and their anger, such as it is, is against a UK government who they believe forced them into voting for a self-destructive Brexit that the really didn't want.
I think the country is on the wrong track, but it has nothing to do with Brexit. And that selection of countries is hilarious.
The two are connected.
If you're in the 60% of people who have no strong feelings about the EU, and you're given the opportunity to make a protest vote against the status quo where credible people are telling you there's no risk and the arguments are balanced, you'll take it. Those people were conned by a combination of circumstance and the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove peddling lies.
I would suggest this shows more clearly than any other statistic that the public's gut feeling is that Brexit is wrong and their anger, such as it is, is against a UK government who they believe forced them into voting for a self-destructive Brexit that the really didn't want.
It could also reflect people wanting Brexit and feeling that there'll be a stitch-up. It could also reflect people's views of the inconclusive 2017 election (May won, by any normal criteria, but also, clearly, didn't).
Can't make *any* strong conclusion on that data.
Neither Conservative voters nor Labour voters got what they wanted.
I would suggest this shows more clearly than any other statistic that the public's gut feeling is that Brexit is wrong and their anger, such as it is, is against a UK government who they believe forced them into voting for a self-destructive Brexit that the really didn't want.
It could also reflect people wanting Brexit and feeling that there'll be a stitch-up. It could also reflect people's views of the inconclusive 2017 election (May won, by any normal criteria, but also, clearly, didn't).
Can't make *any* strong conclusion on that data.
Neither Conservative voters nor Labour voters got what they wanted.
People rarely do. In 2015 many Conservative voters wanted continuity. They sure as hell didn't get it.
The only people I've seen pushing JRM are Corbyn fans trolling. Seems to be quite organised, there were a whole bundle of them started doing it at the same time.
I would suggest this shows more clearly than any other statistic that the public's gut feeling is that Brexit is wrong and their anger, such as it is, is against a UK government who they believe forced them into voting for a self-destructive Brexit that the really didn't want.
It shows the sophistication of the British public: they know that the UK is like a supertanker. It was heading in the wrong direction, they voted to change the direction, but - although the turn is beginning - Momentum is still carrying the country in the wrong direction.
(Actually neither you nor I are correct. But it shows how easy it is to make a case based on a single point statistic)
I would suggest this shows more clearly than any other statistic that the public's gut feeling is that Brexit is wrong and their anger, such as it is, is against a UK government who they believe forced them into voting for a self-destructive Brexit that the really didn't want.
It shows the sophistication of the British public: they know that the UK is like a supertanker. It was heading in the wrong direction, they voted to change the direction, but - although the turn is beginning - Momentum is still carrying the country in the wrong direction.
(Actually neither you nor I are correct. But it shows how easy it is to make a case based on a single point statistic)
I would suggest this shows more clearly than any other statistic that the public's gut feeling is that Brexit is wrong and their anger, such as it is, is against a UK government who they believe forced them into voting for a self-destructive Brexit that the really didn't want.
It shows the sophistication of the British public: they know that the UK is like a supertanker. It was heading in the wrong direction, they voted to change the direction, but - although the turn is beginning - Momentum is still carrying the country in the wrong direction.
(Actually neither you nor I are correct. But it shows how easy it is to make a case based on a single point statistic)
There was some data YouGov used to do that showed govt satisfaction in the context of our european neighbours. Long story short, all governments in western europe were, to differing degrees, unpopular.
I would suggest this shows more clearly than any other statistic that the public's gut feeling is that Brexit is wrong and their anger, such as it is, is against a UK government who they believe forced them into voting for a self-destructive Brexit that the really didn't want.
It shows the sophistication of the British public: they know that the UK is like a supertanker. It was heading in the wrong direction, they voted to change the direction, but - although the turn is beginning - Momentum is still carrying the country in the wrong direction.
(Actually neither you nor I are correct. But it shows how easy it is to make a case based on a single point statistic)
A year ago 40% of people in the UK thought the country was on the right track in the same poll. Now make your case using two data points...
I would suggest this shows more clearly than any other statistic that the public's gut feeling is that Brexit is wrong and their anger, such as it is, is against a UK government who they believe forced them into voting for a self-destructive Brexit that the really didn't want.
It shows the sophistication of the British public: they know that the UK is like a supertanker. It was heading in the wrong direction, they voted to change the direction, but - although the turn is beginning - Momentum is still carrying the country in the wrong direction.
(Actually neither you nor I are correct. But it shows how easy it is to make a case based on a single point statistic)
A year ago 40% of people in the UK thought the country was on the right track in the same poll. Now make your case using two data points...
12% of the population want to overrule the vote of the people. They thought it was going in the right direction - because they were in charge - and are expressing the view on the change rather than the current direction
I should think the US Police would be heavily armed, or 'militarised' as you put it.. Have you seen some of the weapons the civilians have?!
US police forces are much more heavily armed than they used to be. Patrolling with rifles in the vehicle is de rigueur. Body armour and military style clothing are normal. Armoured vehicles are widely available. It has gotten so bad that there are quite a few cases of forces being told to give back inappropriate equipment to the military, when they are found to have acquired things like grenade launchers.
There has been a blurring of the lines between policing and the military, and to be fair the Obama administration was taking action to try and restore some balance.
I should think the US Police would be heavily armed, or 'militarised' as you put it.. Have you seen some of the weapons the civilians have?!
US police forces are much more heavily armed than they used to be. Patrolling with rifles in the vehicle is de rigueur. Body armour and military style clothing are normal. Armoured vehicles are widely available. It has gotten so bad that there are quite a few cases of forces being told to give back inappropriate equipment to the military, when they are found to have acquired things like grenade launchers.
There has been a blurring of the lines between policing and the military, and to be fair the Obama administration was taking action to try and restore some balance.
Well, I expect when everybody is armed to the teeth - from private citizens to street gangs to international criminal organisations - a different approach may be tried. Until then, there is no reason to think the 'militarisation' of which you speak will not continue.
It's remarkable how pbers are more interested in historical debates about statues than about neo-Nazis killing people.
Because we all agree that neo-Nazis (or anyone) killing people is a bad thing?
There's rather more to it than that.
The way in which extreme rightwing views have been allowed into the mainstream so that the weekend's events are now unsurprising is surely worth more discussion.
Brendan O'Neill doesn't half talk some shite. The idea that white supremacy is some new thing in America that is a reaction to divisive safe spacing liberal blah blah blah is such transparently obvious bollocks that I can't even begin to start taking it apart.
It defeats itself.
Just the left reaping what they have sowen, and they don't like it and like you are in denial.
Its a natural consequence of the BS the left have been propagating for decades, and finally the right have decided ok we'll play you at your game. Lefties are now crying foul now as their tactics are being used against them. The Trump presidency being one manifestation of this.
I don't like the results, but its amusing watching the Left & their establishment lose their collective minds.
Yeah. No history of white supremacy in Virginia previously. If only they hadn't been inflamed by a thirty-something paralegal protesting at an invasion of her hometown by Nazis.
The PB apologists need to take a long look at themselves. There is no splitting the difference between murderer and victim.
This video released by the US War Department in 1943 is doing the rounds of my facebook friends...
Well, I expect when everybody is armed to the teeth - from private citizens to street gangs to international criminal organisations - a different approach may be tried. Until then, there is no reason to think the 'militarisation' of which you speak will not continue.
It could be reversed a bit. Allowing the military to donate surplus equipment to law enforcement is not a bad idea, but it shouldn't be allowed to result in the type and quantity of equipment available to law enforcement changing. The DHS showering law enforcement with money to fight terrorism has been largely wasteful, and ineffective, and also changed the character of law enforcement. It's easy to understand why this happened, but it takes a brave politician to say it went too far and that it needs to be reversed. Political opponents will definitely use that against you.
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain, withdrawing their agencies and establishing their defensive positions. As one person said to me “We have after all done this before, and we made it work last time”.
When I queried when the Europeans last left Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
It also says that the transition will be 'from a known start point A to an unknown destination.' Presumably therefore you think this is ill-informed nonsense as it will all be a non issue by 2019.
It also says that the transition will be 'from a known start point A to an unknown destination.' Presumably therefore you think this is ill-informed nonsense as it will all be a non issue by 2019.
No, luckily I'm bright enough to be able to distinguish between the issues likely to be important in UK domestic politics and the continuing need to sort out huge amounts of detail in our relationship with the EU.
It also says that the transition will be 'from a known start point A to an unknown destination.' Presumably therefore you think this is ill-informed nonsense as it will all be a non issue by 2019.
No, luckily I'm bright enough to be able to distinguish between the issues likely to be important in UK domestic politics and the continuing need to sort out huge amounts of detail in our relationship with the EU.
We'll know what we are transitioning to. What will matter is not Remain vs Leave - that horse will have definitely bolted - but who can best articulate a vision for our post-EU future.
Well, I expect when everybody is armed to the teeth - from private citizens to street gangs to international criminal organisations - a different approach may be tried. Until then, there is no reason to think the 'militarisation' of which you speak will not continue.
It could be reversed a bit. Allowing the military to donate surplus equipment to law enforcement is not a bad idea, but it shouldn't be allowed to result in the type and quantity of equipment available to law enforcement changing. The DHS showering law enforcement with money to fight terrorism has been largely wasteful, and ineffective, and also changed the character of law enforcement. It's easy to understand why this happened, but it takes a brave politician to say it went too far and that it needs to be reversed. Political opponents will definitely use that against you.
Well, sure. There's a ready market for 'arming up', and it wins votes. Hard to see in the circumstances that even reversing a bit is going to happen any time soon.
And of course a little bit of reversing is hardly a serious attempt to address the crux of the matter.
It also says that the transition will be 'from a known start point A to an unknown destination.' Presumably therefore you think this is ill-informed nonsense as it will all be a non issue by 2019.
No, luckily I'm bright enough to be able to distinguish between the issues likely to be important in UK domestic politics and the continuing need to sort out huge amounts of detail in our relationship with the EU.
We'll know what we are transitioning to. What will matter is not Remain vs Leave - that horse will have definitely bolted - but who can best articulate a vision for our post-EU future.
Except we won't.
There will be lots of detail to sort out, but in outline the end point will be known. Quite apart from anything else, our EU friends have made it very clear that won't accept a transition period otherwise.
I'd go further, and say that the end point is already known, provided negotiations don't break down completely (which I continue to put at a 20% risk). The deal which can be done is clear: a trade deal for goods, probably not for services (although that remains a goal for the UK), theoretical abandonment of freedom of movement with little practical change, no direct role for the ECJ but in practice little change, reduced but still significant payments to the EU budget, and specific agreements for associate membership or some similar opting-in to many EU programmes.
Admittedly all of this won't IMO have been worth the hassle, economic damage, political chaos, and risk of a Corbyn government, but don't blame me, I voted Remain.
It also says that the transition will be 'from a known start point A to an unknown destination.' Presumably therefore you think this is ill-informed nonsense as it will all be a non issue by 2019.
No, luckily I'm bright enough to be able to distinguish between the issues likely to be important in UK domestic politics and the continuing need to sort out huge amounts of detail in our relationship with the EU.
We'll know what we are transitioning to. What will matter is not Remain vs Leave - that horse will have definitely bolted - but who can best articulate a vision for our post-EU future.
Except we won't.
There will be lots of detail to sort out, but in outline the end point will be known. Quite apart from anything else, our EU friends have made it very clear that won't accept a transition period otherwise.
I'd go further, and say that the end point is already known, provided negotiations don't break down completely. The deal which can be done is clear: a trade deal for goods, probably not for services (although that remains a goal for the UK), theoretical abandonment of freedom of movement with little practical change, no direct role for the ECJ but in practice little change, reduced but still significant payments to the EU budget, and specific agreements for associate membership or some similar opting-in to many EU programmes.
Admittedly all of this won't IMO have been worth the hassle, economic damage, political chaos, and risk of a Corbyn government, but don't blame me, I voted Remain.
Your assumption is that the end point will be the status that maximises the degree of 'out' we can get while minimising the economic and political cost. That is not a safe assumption.
Your assumption is that the end point will be the status that maximises the degree of 'out' we can get while minimising the economic and political cost. That is not a safe assumption.
Well, that's where the logic of the position should lead, for both sides. It may not be safe to assume we'll get there, I agree. The risk is certainly on the downside.
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain, withdrawing their agencies and establishing their defensive positions. As one person said to me “We have after all done this before, and we made it work last time”.
When I queried when the Europeans last left Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
Ask the Welsh how they feel about how that worked out for them.
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain, withdrawing their agencies and establishing their defensive positions. As one person said to me “We have after all done this before, and we made it work last time”.
When I queried when the Europeans last left Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
yup
it's about time some of our remainers actually get real about their chances of stayng in and more importantly whether any of the 27 want us back
One of the US’s most high-profile African American executives has quit Donald Trump’s business advisory panel, citing “a responsibility to take a stand against violence and extremism”.
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain, withdrawing their agencies and establishing their defensive positions. As one person said to me “We have after all done this before, and we made it work last time”.
When I queried when the Europeans last left Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
yup
it's about time some of our remainers actually get real about their chances of stayng in and more importantly whether any of the 27 want us back
The article is quite positive about the chances of bring welcomed back:
"Various EU politicians, including both Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron to name but two, have said that the door remains open, and if the UK were to ask to be taken back, the EU-27 would almost certainly agree – any misgivings about readmitting the EU’s most troublesome member state would surely be trumped by the sheer psychological victory and morale booster of having the British crawling back with their tails between their legs."
It also says that the transition will be 'from a known start point A to an unknown destination.' Presumably therefore you think this is ill-informed nonsense as it will all be a non issue by 2019.
No, luckily I'm bright enough to be able to distinguish between the issues likely to be important in UK domestic politics and the continuing need to sort out huge amounts of detail in our relationship with the EU.
We'll know what we are transitioning to. What will matter is not Remain vs Leave - that horse will have definitely bolted - but who can best articulate a vision for our post-EU future.
Except we won't.
There will be lots of detail to sort out, but in outline the end point will be known. Quite apart from anything else, our EU friends have made it very clear that won't accept a transition period otherwise.
I'd go further, and say that the end point is already known, provided negotiations don't break down completely (which I continue to put at a 20% risk). The deal which can be done is clear: a trade deal for goods, probably not for services (although that remains a goal for the UK), theoretical abandonment of freedom of movement with little practical change, no direct role for the ECJ but in practice little change, reduced but still significant payments to the EU budget, and specific agreements for associate membership or some similar opting-in to many EU programmes.
Admittedly all of this won't IMO have been worth the hassle, economic damage, political chaos, and risk of a Corbyn government, but don't blame me, I voted Remain.
I go along with this. Additionally, the UK will largely accept EU regulation by treaty or de facto without any input into it. The UK will also lose out on European trade arrangements with third countries. The "ability to strike our own trade deals" is pure propaganda. It's the ability to strike second division deals when we were operating in the premier league before. However the trade dea with the EU will contain a services element when it's finally implemented, which could be after a decade or more. It's going to be a painful "transition"
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain, withdrawing their agencies and establishing their defensive positions. As one person said to me “We have after all done this before, and we made it work last time”.
When I queried when the Europeans last left Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
yup
it's about time some of our remainers actually get real about their chances of stayng in and more importantly whether any of the 27 want us back
The article is quite positive about the chances of bring welcomed back:
"Various EU politicians, including both Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron to name but two, have said that the door remains open, and if the UK were to ask to be taken back, the EU-27 would almost certainly agree – any misgivings about readmitting the EU’s most troublesome member state would surely be trumped by the sheer psychological victory and morale booster of having the British crawling back with their tails between their legs."
No it isnt
the undertone is that it will be on EU terms most ofwhich we would not accept
It also says that the transition will be 'from a known start point A to an unknown destination.' Presumably therefore you think this is ill-informed nonsense as it will all be a non issue by 2019.
No, luckily I'm bright enough to be able to distinguish between the issues likely to be important in UK domestic politics and the continuing need to sort out huge amounts of detail in our relationship with the EU.
We'll know what we are transitioning to. What will matter is not Remain vs Leave - that horse will have definitely bolted - but who can best articulate a vision for our post-EU future.
Except we won't.
There will be lots of detail to sort out, but in outline the end point will be known. Quite apart from anything else, our EU friends have made it very clear that won't accept a transition period otherwise.
I'd go further, and say that the end point is already known, provided negotiations don't break down completely (which I continue to put at a 20% risk). The deal which can be done is clear: a trade deal for goods, probably not for services (although that remains a goal for the UK), theoretical abandonment of freedom of movement with little practical change, no direct role for the ECJ but in practice little change, reduced but still significant payments to the EU budget, and specific agreements for associate membership or some similar opting-in to many EU programmes.
Admittedly all of this won't IMO have been worth the hassle, economic damage, political chaos, and risk of a Corbyn government, but don't blame me, I voted Remain.
I go along with this. Additionally, the UK will largely accept EU regulation by treaty or de facto without any input into it. The UK will also lose out on European trade arrangements with third countries. The "ability to strike our own trade deals" is pure propaganda. It's the ability to strike second division deals when we were operating in the premier league before. However the trade dea with the EU will contain a services element when it's finally implemented, which could be after a decade or more. It's going to be a painful "transition"
I think the services element will run along the lines of: if you want to sell your services into the EU you must abide by everything the EU says and that in the event of a dispute as to what everything the EU says actually means, the final arbiter shall be the ECJ.
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain, withdrawing their agencies and establishing their defensive positions. As one person said to me “We have after all done this before, and we made it work last time”.
When I queried when the Europeans last left Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
yup
it's about time some of our remainers actually get real about their chances of stayng in and more importantly whether any of the 27 want us back
The article is quite positive about the chances of bring welcomed back:
"Various EU politicians, including both Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron to name but two, have said that the door remains open, and if the UK were to ask to be taken back, the EU-27 would almost certainly agree – any misgivings about readmitting the EU’s most troublesome member state would surely be trumped by the sheer psychological victory and morale booster of having the British crawling back with their tails between their legs."
No it isnt
the undertone is that it will be on EU terms most ofwhich we would not accept
why give us a veto back ?
Brexit really began in the mid 90s when we didn't accept the EU's design for monetary union after the hard ECU plan didn't win support. The denouement to this multi-decade sulk can only be a capitulation from our side: we will accept the EU's terms.
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain, withdrawing their agencies and establishing their defensive positions. As one person said to me “We have after all done this before, and we made it work last time”.
When I queried when the Europeans last left Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
yup
it's about time some of our remainers actually get real about their chances of stayng in and more importantly whether any of the 27 want us back
The article is quite positive about the chances of bring welcomed back:
"Various EU politicians, including both Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron to name but two, have said that the door remains open, and if the UK were to ask to be taken back, the EU-27 would almost certainly agree – any misgivings about readmitting the EU’s most troublesome member state would surely be trumped by the sheer psychological victory and morale booster of having the British crawling back with their tails between their legs."
No it isnt
the undertone is that it will be on EU terms most ofwhich we would not accept
why give us a veto back ?
It says we are unlikely to go back in - but not because the EU don't want us back - but because we won't change our mind.
"The EU does not expect Britain to change its mind – the full costs of leaving will not be apparent soon enough and the blow to the Conservative party would be far too damaging."
If we did change our mind - we would likely be welcomed back.
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain, withdrawing their agencies and establishing their defensive positions. As one person said to me “We have after all done this before, and we made it work last time”.
When I queried when the Europeans last left Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
yup
it's about time some of our remainers actually get real about their chances of stayng in and more importantly whether any of the 27 want us back
The article is quite positive about the chances of bring welcomed back:
"Various EU politicians, including both Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron to name but two, have said that the door remains open, and if the UK were to ask to be taken back, the EU-27 would almost certainly agree – any misgivings about readmitting the EU’s most troublesome member state would surely be trumped by the sheer psychological victory and morale booster of having the British crawling back with their tails between their legs."
No it isnt
the undertone is that it will be on EU terms most ofwhich we would not accept
why give us a veto back ?
Brexit really began in the mid 90s when we didn't accept the EU's design for monetary union after the hard ECU plan didn't win support. The denouement to this multi-decade sulk can only be a capitulation from our side: we will accept the EU's terms.
except of course the majority of brits wont vote for it
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I'm fairly confident that the governor is exaggerating. After the Iraq drawdown police forces across America have been given all sorts of surplus military equipment. Tiny little police forces in the middle of nowhere can have weapons and vehicles that would more commonly be used for war-fighting thanks to the 1033 program.
The governor, let's not forget, is a particularly lefty Democrat so he's quite happy to rabble-rouse here.
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain, withdrawing their agencies and establishing their defensive positions. As one person said to me “We have after all done this before, and we made it work last time”.
When I queried when the Europeans last left Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
yup
it's about time some of our remainers actually get real about their chances of stayng in and more importantly whether any of the 27 want us back
The article is quite positive about the chances of bring welcomed back:
"Various EU politicians, including both Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron to name but two, have said that the door remains open, and if the UK were to ask to be taken back, the EU-27 would almost certainly agree – any misgivings about readmitting the EU’s most troublesome member state would surely be trumped by the sheer psychological victory and morale booster of having the British crawling back with their tails between their legs."
No it isnt
the undertone is that it will be on EU terms most ofwhich we would not accept
why give us a veto back ?
It says we are unlikely to go back in - but not because the EU don't want us back - but because we won't change our mind.
"The EU does not expect Britain to change its mind – the full costs of leaving will not be apparent soon enough and the blow to the Conservative party would be far too damaging."
If we did change our mind - we would likely be welcomed back.
who in the EU is begging us to come back
where are the commissioners making a new offer
if this was France they would be all over the place
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain, withdrawing their agencies and establishing their defensive positions. As one person said to me “We have after all done this before, and we made it work last time”.
When I queried when the Europeans last left Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
yup
it's about time some of our remainers actually get real about their chances of stayng in and more importantly whether any of the 27 want us back
The article is quite positive about the chances of bring welcomed back:
"Various EU politicians, including both Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron to name but two, have said that the door remains open, and if the UK were to ask to be taken back, the EU-27 would almost certainly agree – any misgivings about readmitting the EU’s most troublesome member state would surely be trumped by the sheer psychological victory and morale booster of having the British crawling back with their tails between their legs."
No it isnt
the undertone is that it will be on EU terms most ofwhich we would not accept
why give us a veto back ?
It says we are unlikely to go back in - but not because the EU don't want us back - but because we won't change our mind.
"The EU does not expect Britain to change its mind – the full costs of leaving will not be apparent soon enough and the blow to the Conservative party would be far too damaging."
If we did change our mind - we would likely be welcomed back.
who in the EU is begging us to come back
where are the commissioners making a new offer
if this was France they would be all over the place
but it isnt and no one is really that bothered.
A new offer would be a sign of weakness and wouldn't convince any of the Brexiteers. The lack of a new offer is a sign of strength and shows that the EU cannot be held to ransom by any one nation.
Brexiteers could never accept membership of the EU because they had never tasted national defeat. This problem will be resolved.
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain,Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
yup
it's about time some of our remainers actually get real about their chances of stayng in and more importantly whether any of the 27 want us back
The article is quite positive about the chances of brieen their legs."
No it isnt
the undertone is that it will be on EU terms most ofwhich we would not accept
why give us a veto back ?
It says we are unlikely to go back in - but not bd be far too damaging."
If we did change our mind - we would likely be welcomed back.
who in the EU is begging us to come back
where are the commissioners making a new offer
if this was France they would be all over the place
but it isnt and no one is really that bothered.
A new offer would be a sign of weakness and wouldn't convince any of the Brexiteers. The lack of a new offer is a sign of strength and shows that the EU cannot be held to ransom by any one nation.
Brexiteers could never accept membership of the EU because they had never tasted national defeat. This problem will be resolved.
just nonsense
the EU has moved beyond the UK and the UK beyond the EU
Now, if only we could get the backers of this nonsense project to pay back the millions of taxpayer funds they've squandered ...
Surely Boris could have used some of his £350m a week to cover the cost?
Boris comes out of the whole episode incredibly badly, and if there is any justice it should harm his chances of becoming PM. If he behaved that poorly in the mayoralty, what would he do as PM?
(I like Boris as a character; I don't think he's goof enough to be PM).
Now, if only we could get the backers of this nonsense project to pay back the millions of taxpayer funds they've squandered ...
Whilst something that expensive is hard to justify, a pedestrian bridge there would be very handy. I've never understood why the residents on the south side were so against it.
the EU has moved beyond the UK and the UK beyond the EU
Yes, and that process will continue further over the next couple of years. In particular, we were a major impediment to closer Eurozone integration, which remains necessary if they are going to address some of their structural problems.
Now, if only we could get the backers of this nonsense project to pay back the millions of taxpayer funds they've squandered ...
Whilst something that expensive is hard to justify, a pedestrian bridge there would be very handy. I've never understood why the residents on the south side were so against it.
That part of London isn't exactly short of bridges. So yes, whilst it might be handy, the question is why should the money be spent there rather than (say) East London, where there are fewer routes across river? Then there are all the follow-up questions: why ban bicycles, why so expensive, why not properly let contracts, etc, etc.
It was someone's pipedream that was jumped on by a z-list celebrity, who was then helped out by her politician friend.
Now, if only we could get the backers of this nonsense project to pay back the millions of taxpayer funds they've squandered ...
Whilst something that expensive is hard to justify, a pedestrian bridge there would be very handy. I've never understood why the residents on the south side were so against it.
Let's face it, the main reason that Spiteful Sadiq pulled the plug is because it was associated with his predecessor. Same reason he sacked all the bus conductors.
Now, if only we could get the backers of this nonsense project to pay back the millions of taxpayer funds they've squandered ...
Whilst something that expensive is hard to justify, a pedestrian bridge there would be very handy. I've never understood why the residents on the south side were so against it.
That part of London isn't exactly short of bridges. So yes, whilst it might be handy, the question is why should the money be spent there rather than (say) East London, where there are fewer routes across river? Then there are all the follow-up questions: why ban bicycles, why so expensive, why not properly let contracts, etc, etc.
It was someone's pipedream that was jumped on by a z-list celebrity, who was then helped out by her politician friend.
The report into it is excoriating.
It would also have ruined views from Waterloo Bridge and was going to be closed to the public overnight.
Now, if only we could get the backers of this nonsense project to pay back the millions of taxpayer funds they've squandered ...
Whilst something that expensive is hard to justify, a pedestrian bridge there would be very handy. I've never understood why the residents on the south side were so against it.
That part of London isn't exactly short of bridges. So yes, whilst it might be handy, the question is why should the money be spent there rather than (say) East London, where there are fewer routes across river? Then there are all the follow-up questions: why ban bicycles, why so expensive, why not properly let contracts, etc, etc.
It was someone's pipedream that was jumped on by a z-list celebrity, who was then helped out by her politician friend.
The report into it is excoriating.
It would also have ruined views from Waterloo Bridge and was going to be closed to the public overnight.
You would probably have complained about the Elizabeth tower ruining views from the south bank.
Now, if only we could get the backers of this nonsense project to pay back the millions of taxpayer funds they've squandered ...
Whilst something that expensive is hard to justify, a pedestrian bridge there would be very handy. I've never understood why the residents on the south side were so against it.
That part of London isn't exactly short of bridges. So yes, whilst it might be handy, the question is why should the money be spent there rather than (say) East London, where there are fewer routes across river? Then there are all the follow-up questions: why ban bicycles, why so expensive, why not properly let contracts, etc, etc.
It was someone's pipedream that was jumped on by a z-list celebrity, who was then helped out by her politician friend.
The report into it is excoriating.
It would also have ruined views from Waterloo Bridge and was going to be closed to the public overnight.
You would probably have complained about the Elizabeth tower ruining views from the south bank.
Charles, it might be time for you to reconsider what you've written on here about the Garden Bridge and perhaps, just perhaps, admit that what people were telling you was correct.
Comments
You are crazy in the head.
The PB apologists need to take a long look at themselves. There is no splitting the difference between murderer and victim.
https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera/videos/10155897809698690/?hc_ref=ARTRTtilbm-OBd681f0GtbbiMlL-MK129K7gRfckS5ZAKyJ-P39cF78As1fpvHh37Vs&pnref=story
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-voters-insight-idUSKCN1AU164?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=59918c1204d3012bd38ef927&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
I'm not sure there is any version of Brexit that will satisfy people will views like this.
Especially since earlier in the article:
"Despite a lower proportion of residents born outside Britain than the national average - at 10 percent of the Medway population compared with 14.5 percent across England - voters say immigration is the main issue that May must address."
It could also reflect people's views of the inconclusive 2017 election (May won, by any normal criteria, but also, clearly, didn't).
Can't make *any* strong conclusion on that data.
If you're in the 60% of people who have no strong feelings about the EU, and you're given the opportunity to make a protest vote against the status quo where credible people are telling you there's no risk and the arguments are balanced, you'll take it. Those people were conned by a combination of circumstance and the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove peddling lies.
There's an organized campaign - but it's not by Corbyn fans.
Con Home wants him in a Ministerial job...
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/08/rees-mogg-should-be-offered-a-job-on-the-conservative-front-bench.html
(Actually neither you nor I are correct. But it shows how easy it is to make a case based on a single point statistic)
(Actually neither you nor I are correct. But it shows how easy it is to make a case based on a single point statistic)
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/majority-across-25-countries-say-their-country-wrong-track
There has been a blurring of the lines between policing and the military, and to be fair the Obama administration was taking action to try and restore some balance.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/14/chicken-meat-exported-africa-belgium-tested-insecticide-fipronil
The Gruppenfuhrer could be round as I write......brrrrrr.
http://laburnum-consulting.co.uk/brexit-the-eus-perspective/
including this nice bit:
the EU-27 are preparing to leave Britain, withdrawing their agencies and establishing their defensive positions. As one person said to me “We have after all done this before, and we made it work last time”.
When I queried when the Europeans last left Britain, he replied “In 407 AD, when we withdrew our legions”.
Mr. Nabavi, interesting reference, given the Western Empire collapsed shortly thereafter.
And of course a little bit of reversing is hardly a serious attempt to address the crux of the matter.
I'd go further, and say that the end point is already known, provided negotiations don't break down completely (which I continue to put at a 20% risk). The deal which can be done is clear: a trade deal for goods, probably not for services (although that remains a goal for the UK), theoretical abandonment of freedom of movement with little practical change, no direct role for the ECJ but in practice little change, reduced but still significant payments to the EU budget, and specific agreements for associate membership or some similar opting-in to many EU programmes.
Admittedly all of this won't IMO have been worth the hassle, economic damage, political chaos, and risk of a Corbyn government, but don't blame me, I voted Remain.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/897084142185177088
it's about time some of our remainers actually get real about their chances of stayng in and more importantly whether any of the 27 want us back
One of the US’s most high-profile African American executives has quit Donald Trump’s business advisory panel, citing “a responsibility to take a stand against violence and extremism”.
"Various EU politicians, including both Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron to name but two, have said that the door remains open, and if the UK were to ask to be taken back, the EU-27 would almost certainly agree – any misgivings about readmitting the EU’s most troublesome member state would surely be trumped by the sheer psychological victory and morale booster of having the British crawling back with their tails between their legs."
the undertone is that it will be on EU terms most ofwhich we would not accept
why give us a veto back ?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/13/scariest-test-england-ever-played-terror-west-indies-cricket-1986-patrick-patterson
Even this who think test cricket boring might find this of interest.
"The EU does not expect Britain to change its mind – the full costs of leaving will not be apparent soon enough and the blow to the Conservative party would be far too damaging."
If we did change our mind - we would likely be welcomed back.
He's not a disinterested neutral opinion.
where are the commissioners making a new offer
if this was France they would be all over the place
but it isnt and no one is really that bothered.
Brexiteers could never accept membership of the EU because they had never tasted national defeat. This problem will be resolved.
the EU has moved beyond the UK and the UK beyond the EU
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40921373
Now, if only we could get the backers of this nonsense project to pay back the millions of taxpayer funds they've squandered ...
(I like Boris as a character; I don't think he's goof enough to be PM).
It was someone's pipedream that was jumped on by a z-list celebrity, who was then helped out by her politician friend.
The report into it is excoriating.
Out today with a Foreword by Nigel Farage.
I might write a book review.