So how do you explain the investment by big EC companies in manufacturing in Slovakia, Czech Republic etc? It could clearly be argued that there is a transitional phase during which these accession countries lose population, skills etc., but this is compensated over time by investment, and they gradually rise to the mean. I'm a very regular visitor to the two aforementioned countries and what I see is I see two countries on the up, going in a very different direction to the UK.
The woes of places like Cornwall and South Wales are largely down to domestic policy post war, not anything the EU did to us.
I defer to your knowledge of Slovakia and the Czech Republic and this is certainly to be welcomed. Whether we have seen the same level of investment in Romania and Bulgaria seems to be more open to question at this time.
I do agree in time (and we are seeing this already to some degree with Poles and the Baltic States) that there is a flow back to the native lands as their economies improve and the standards of living rise in response.
My point would be if this mechanism is as well known as seems to be the case, some forward thinking and planning as to the managing of the expectations of newly-joining countries would seem to be in order.
As to Cornwall and South Wales, my point was our EU membership was beneficial in sending funding for key infrastructural projects our way - I believe the dualling of the A30 in Cornwall was funded through Objective One as an example. It's that kind of investment in improving the economies of the rural and peripheral areas with which the EU should be involved supporting national Governments.
We give a bunch of money to the EU
They deduct some in administration costs and give us a small part back to widen a road in Cornwall.
Isn't there a more efficient way to do this?
Indeed why should we have redistribution Charles? Maybe committees of volunteers could be exhorted to widen the road for free, parish by parish.
Isn't that the Big Society? Or are those days unmentionable now?
I'm all in favour of redistribution - both on an individual level and on a regional level. One of the main aims of my cultural programme is promoting regional development.
But I'd rather London helps Cornwall directly than we send a bunch of money to Brussels who then send some of it back to Cornwall. (And I'd rather spend more in Cornwall or other parts of the UK than Bulgaria or Romania).
Brussels does plenty of other things with the money, such as establishing the EMA for example.
So how do you explain the investment by big EC companies in manufacturing in Slovakia, Czech Republic etc? It could clearly be argued that there is a transitional phase during which these accession countries lose population, skills etc., but this is compensated over time by investment, and they gradually rise to the mean. I'm a very regular visitor to the two aforementioned countries and what I see is I see two countries on the up, going in a very different direction to the UK.
The woes of places like Cornwall and South Wales are largely down to domestic policy post war, not anything the EU did to us.
I defer to your knowledge of Slovakia and the Czech Republic and this is certainly to be welcomed. Whether we have seen the same level of investment in Romania and Bulgaria seems to be more open to question at this time.
I do agree in time (and we are seeing this already to some degree with Poles and the Baltic States) that there is a flow back to the native lands as their economies improve and the standards of living rise in response.
My point would be if this mechanism is as well known as seems to be the case, some forward thinking and planning as to the managing of the expectations of newly-joining countries would seem to be in order.
As to Cornwall and South Wales, my point was our EU membership was beneficial in sending funding for key infrastructural projects our way - I believe the dualling of the A30 in Cornwall was funded through Objective One as an example. It's that kind of investment in improving the economies of the rural and peripheral areas with which the EU should be involved supporting national Governments.
We give a bunch of money to the EU
They deduct some in administration costs and give us a small part back to widen a road in Cornwall.
Isn't there a more efficient way to do this?
Indeed why should we have redistribution Charles? Maybe committees of volunteers could be exhorted to widen the road for free, parish by parish.
Isn't that the Big Society? Or are those days unmentionable now?
I'm all in favour of redistribution - both on an individual level and on a regional level. One of the main aims of my cultural programme is promoting regional development.
But I'd rather London helps Cornwall directly than we send a bunch of money to Brussels who then send some of it back to Cornwall. (And I'd rather spend more in Cornwall or other parts of the UK than Bulgaria or Romania).
But history has shown, repeatedly, that London helps London. The crumbs are offered to the rest.
I strongly suspect that Dave not only did no preparation, he expressly prevented the Civil Service from, as he thought, wasting their time preparing. That is what the Civil Service would do routinely unless stopped.
Well you're wrong.
Preparation was begun but since Leave had no manifesto, nor any white paper (like the Scottish Government in the Indyref) it was hard for the civil service to wargame the precise Brexit route that would be delivered as the Vote Leave campaign contained so many contradictions and blatantly unrealistic hopes.
Article dated 17 Jan 2016
Mr Cameron and his Chancellor George Osborne, who are leading Britain's renegotiation with the European Union ahead of a referendum within the next two years, have insisted that civil servants are not working on planning what will happen if Britons vote to leave in the European Union referendum.
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
When it is cashless, and the currency rates are stable, it matters very little in what nominal currency the transaction is conducted in.
OTOH the flip side of that is that if you have to keep your currency stable with someone else's bigger one, and it's cashless, there's basically zero benefit to having your own currency.
There's the symbolic value, and also the option to part ways (if needs be) in extremis.
With all the criticism again on here of the Government, I can't believe that people are now just taking for granted the extraordinary unemployment figures that this government has achieved. They are truly remarkable and they should be congratulated.
The employment figures are indeed remarkable and a very strong contrast to the mass unemployment that was tolerated in the 1980s as the economy was reformed. But there are a number of problems.
Firstly, why is this strong growth in employment not being reflected in growth in GDP? The implication is that productivity is flat to falling backwards. This tends to suggest that much of the employment growth is at the bottom end of the skills and wages arc. This in turn is driving down average pay since the proportion of our workforce on low skills at or just above minimum wage is increasing.
Much of this employment is subsidised by in work benefits. There are good social reasons for this but this is also why significant falls in unemployment have not really helped with deficit reduction. The subsidy means demand is expanded beyond the value of the output. This is a major cause of our trade deficit.
Ultimately there has to be a concern that this is not sustainable. We need to produce enough value to pay our bills individually, in the public finances and as a country. And we aren't. We need to focus enough of our efforts on higher value jobs with higher pay. At the moment we are excessively focussing on the low skill, low paid.
UK companies have become hooked on cheap labour
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Companies will use what resources are available to them. Why is the cheap labour available - and no its not all immigration.
Years of restrictions and austerity for those on the dole have made work pay better than not working, for the first time in years for many. So they're now taking up jobs. These are unskilled people who would otherwise be on the dole, they're not ready for high skilled jobs.
But I believe in a work ethic and years of working could see some of these people develop their skills and progress. Plus the children of these families now see parents who work rather than sit on the dole.
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
Yes, me too. But there never was much doubt that the departure of the UK from the EU would result in an acceleration of the project. We have been a brake on that project since at least 1992, constantly looking to limit and opt out of the various developments. Given the decision to proceed with the Euro without any regard to the underlying economic reality such an acceleration is both necessary and welcome. Those EU countries who are not in the Euro have some difficult choices to face.
The real question is whether the EU would have proceeded down this road anyway had we remained members. I think it is clear that it would, just more slowly and in more complicated ways. Building a consensus for such a future for the UK is something those committed to the EU never even attempted. Instead they lied about what the effect of treaties was, what the extent of EU influence was (now painfully exposed by the Repeal Bill) and when we would ever get a say. The accusations of lies directed towards the leave campaign are really quite funny. If those in favour of the EU had not lied and lied leave would never have had a chance.
Yep, which is why re-joining is pretty unlikely.
But, I'm unwilling to rule anything out given the events of the last few years.
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I thought TSE had said he does not want to rejoin, but thinks that we will.
With all the criticism again on here of the Government, I can't believe that people are now just taking for granted the extraordinary unemployment figures that this government has achieved. They are truly remarkable and they should be congratulated.
I just wish they would move publication day from Wednesday, it gives the PM a rather lame free hit once a month ("I am surprised he doesn't welcome his morning's employment figures rather than asking questions about..")
I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively
Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves..
Basically, we will fix the rules so we give no money to those who disagree with us.
With all the criticism again on here of the Government, I can't believe that people are now just taking for granted the extraordinary unemployment figures that this government has achieved. They are truly remarkable and they should be congratulated.
The employment figures are indeed remarkable and a very strong contrast to the mass unemployment that was tolerated in the 1980s as the economy was reformed. But there are a number of problems.
Firstly, why is this strong growth in employment not being reflected in growth in GDP? The implication is that productivity is flat to falling backwards. This tends to suggest that much of the employment growth is at the bottom end of the skills and wages arc. This in turn is driving down average pay since the proportion of our workforce on low skills at or just above minimum wage is increasing.
Much of this employment is subsidised by in work benefits. There are good social reasons for this but this is also why significant falls in unemployment have not really helped with deficit reduction. The subsidy means demand is expanded beyond the value of the output. This is a major cause of our trade deficit.
Ultimately there has to be a concern that this is not sustainable. We need to produce enough value to pay our bills individually, in the public finances and as a country. And we aren't. We need to focus enough of our efforts on higher value jobs with higher pay. At the moment we are excessively focussing on the low skill, low paid.
UK companies have become hooked on cheap labour
And cheap money.
It's right across the western world. The middle class is disappearing.
A huge chunk of those entering the workforce now have a really sh*t future ahead of them.
They're facing ad-hoc employment on the wrong end of an app, renting a room in a shared house for life.
I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively
Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves..
Basically, we will fix the rules so we give no money to those who disagree with us.
#EUdemocracy
QMV will screw Ireland on tax, France and Germany are gunning for them
He is leader of the opposition and got 40% of the vote so of course he can be PM that does not mean he will be or that if he is he will be anything other than an awful PM
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
The answer would be EFTA. But the snag is it now includes full free movement, with an emergency brake only.
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
Ultimately that's what staying in means too
Europoliticos have been very open in saying so for decades
Only british politicians have lied to their electorates in pretending that's not what is going to happen
It was Alastair Meeks who nearly gave me a heart attack on 8th June, with his "I think Corbyn should now be favourite to be PM" post.
Disappointing as the result was, there was never any point during the night at which I thought that Labour would win sufficient seats to form a government.
There were some shockers, like seeing Southgate, Kensington, and Canterbury go, or the majority in Putney slashed to 1,500, as well as the rumour that Shipley had gone, but it was clear from an early stage that there would be enough good results from Scotland and the Midlands, and enough holds in Conservative marginals, to return a Conservative government.
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
The answer would be EFTA. But the snag is it now includes full free movement, with an emergency brake only.
Most likely we will leave both the EU and EEA for 10 years to control free movement, then in a decade or so and particularly if we have a moderate Labour PM like Chuka Umunna we may rejoin the ERA and EFTA. I can't see us ever rejoining the EU now, it is more likely Sweden and Denmark and maybe Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic leave the EU and join EFTA than the UK joins the EU
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
I might even have supported Brexit if as part of the deal, we had been offered:
Root and branch reform of the Lords Electoral Reform for the HoC, to a system based on PR A written constitution A bill of rights Local Government Reform to enable proper regional democracy.
That might have offered a degree of compensation for the benefits being lost. But the Tories would never offer any of that. They're too wedded to English Antediluvianism.
"Revenge is a dish best served cold in the Potteries, where a Hungarian immigrant has taken over the UKIP HQ used by Paul Nuttall in his gaffe-prone by-election campaign and turned it into an ice-cream parlour.
Of course, had UKIP opened their own ices shop it would only have served vanilla and toppings would have been banned, to prevent hundreds and thousands swarming in"
It was Alastair Meeks who nearly gave me a heart attack on 8th June, with his "I think Corbyn should now be favourite to be PM" post.
Disappointing as the result was, there was never any point during the night at which I thought that Labour would win sufficient seats to form a government.
There were some shockers, like seeing Southgate, Kensington, and Canterbury go, or the majority in Putney slashed to 1,500, as well as the rumour that Shipley had gone, but it was clear from an early stage that there would be enough good results from Scotland and the Midlands, and enough holds in Conservative marginals, to return a Conservative government.
I might even have supported Brexit if as part of the deal, we had been offered:
Root and branch reform of the Lords Electoral Reform for the HoC, to a system based on PR A written constitution A bill of rights Local Government Reform to enable proper regional democracy.
That might have offered a degree of compensation for the benefits being lost. But the Tories would never offer any of that. They're too wedded to English Antediluvianism.
Wouldn't argue with any of that, my friend.
The problem is if the status quo works to your advantage, why would you want to change it ?
This bigger debate about what kind of Britain, politically, socially, culturally and economically we want to have post-EU membership and in particular our relationship with the rest of the world, could have been had after 23/6/16 but the referendum losers were too busy complaining and the referendum winners were too busy gloating.
We lost the thick end of a year in recrimination and rancour and then topped it off by a waste of an election which has basically got us nowhere slowly. Now, we have 18 months to try and organise our future and the Government don't want us to think about it but simply to trust them.
So how do you explain the investment by big EC companies in manufacturing in Slovakia, Czech Republic etc? It could clearly be argued that there is a transitional phase during which these accession countries lose population, skills etc., but this is compensated over time by investment, and they gradually rise to the mean. I'm a very regular visitor to the two aforementioned countries and what I see is I see two countries on the up, going in a very different direction to the UK.
The woes of places like Cornwall and South Wales are largely down to domestic policy post war, not anything the EU did to us.
I defer to your knowledge of Slovakia and the Czech Republic and this is certainly to be welcomed. Whether we have seen the same level of investment in Romania and Bulgaria seems to be more open to question at this time.
I do agree in time (and we are seeing this already to some degree with Poles and the Baltic States) that there is a flow back to the native lands as their economies improve and the standards of living rise in response.
My point would be if this mechanism is as well known as seems to be the case, some forward thinking and planning as to the managing of the expectations of newly-joining countries would seem to be in order.
As to Cornwall and South Wales, my point was our EU membership was beneficial in sending funding for key infrastructural projects our way - I believe the dualling of the A30 in Cornwall was funded through Objective One as an example. It's that kind of investment in improving the economies of the rural and peripheral areas with which the EU should be involved supporting national Governments.
We give a bunch of money to the EU
They deduct some in administration costs and give us a small part back to widen a road in Cornwall.
Isn't there a more efficient way to do this?
Indeed why should we have redistribution Charles? Maybe committees of volunteers could be exhorted to widen the road for free, parish by parish.
Isn't that the Big Society? Or are those days unmentionable now?
I'm all in favour of redistribution - both on an individual level and on a regional level. One of the main aims of my cultural programme is promoting regional development.
But I'd rather London helps Cornwall directly than we send a bunch of money to Brussels who then send some of it back to Cornwall. (And I'd rather spend more in Cornwall or other parts of the UK than Bulgaria or Romania).
But history has shown, repeatedly, that London helps London. The crumbs are offered to the rest.
Which is one of the reasons why people voted to leave.
I strongly suspect that Dave not only did no preparation, he expressly prevented the Civil Service from, as he thought, wasting their time preparing. That is what the Civil Service would do routinely unless stopped.
Well you're wrong.
Preparation was begun but since Leave had no manifesto, nor any white paper (like the Scottish Government in the Indyref) it was hard for the civil service to wargame the precise Brexit route that would be delivered as the Vote Leave campaign contained so many contradictions and blatantly unrealistic hopes.
Article dated 17 Jan 2016
Mr Cameron and his Chancellor George Osborne, who are leading Britain's renegotiation with the European Union ahead of a referendum within the next two years, have insisted that civil servants are not working on planning what will happen if Britons vote to leave in the European Union referendum.
Interesting you should mention his suit. I am only listening so cannot see it, but both commentators on the radio mentioned how good it looked. Maybe a different impression was given a la Nixon v Kennedy.
I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively
Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves..
Basically, we will fix the rules so we give no money to those who disagree with us.
Reading what Juncker says, I think that 'EUSSR' starts being the correct term for their project.
Incredible. Glad we are leaving.
"More democracy means more efficiency. Europe would function better if we were to merge the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council."
How many more efficiency gains from that to "having 27 different constitutions, parliamentary systems and sets of laws is inefficient"?
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
Ultimately that's what staying in means too...
The question is somewhat moot, given we're leaving, but I think you're wrong. It's certainly far more likely the European idealists will get their united states of Europe without us than had we stayed in. We have tipped the balance of power in their favour.
Reading what Juncker says, I think that 'EUSSR' starts being the correct term for their project.
Incredible. Glad we are leaving.
The USSR fought against Nazis, so by your logic Brexiteers are Nazis?
Actually the USSR fought on the same side as the Nazis for almost two years and would happily have continued to do so if Hitler hadn't attacked them in 1941. So your logic is, as usual, let down by your ignorance.
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
Ultimately that's what staying in means too...
The question is somewhat moot, given we're leaving, but I think you're wrong. It's certainly far more likely the European idealists will get their united states of Europe without us than had we stayed in. We have tipped the balance of power in their favour.
The idea we could ever have prevented it was always an illusion. Our membership of the EEC/EU was always characterised by Ever Closer Union no matter how much we might have objected at times.
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
Ultimately that's what staying in means too...
The question is somewhat moot, given we're leaving, but I think you're wrong. It's certainly far more likely the European idealists will get their united states of Europe without us than had we stayed in. We have tipped the balance of power in their favour.
The idea we could ever have prevented it was always an illusion. Our membership of the EEC/EU was always characterised by Ever Closer Union no matter how much we might have objected at times.
Dave's deal specifically opted us out of the 'ever closer union' element. It was the ultimate cake-and-eat-it settlement. Sadly, the Leavers were too busy heaping derision upon it whilst being totally bereft of their own alternative. What an opportunity missed!
Reading what Juncker says, I think that 'EUSSR' starts being the correct term for their project.
Incredible. Glad we are leaving.
But you are so wrong. The EU promotes values of liberal democracy, personal liberty and the rule of law, all of which were anathema to the USSR and somewhat si to its successor state. You can reasonably decide the EU is not for us without grossly misrepresenting it.
Reading what Juncker says, I think that 'EUSSR' starts being the correct term for their project.
Incredible. Glad we are leaving.
We make it far more likely by leaving.
It was increasingly apparent that that's the way the EU glitterati wanted (if sincerely and not maliciously I accept) and though we could've slowed it substantially for sure, nothing was ultimately going to halt the "Project", certainly nothing as trivial as if people actually wanted it or not.
The EU can be as flexible as it likes as long as that flexibility leads, however meanderingly, towards ever closer union. Greece and its basket case figures to get in the Euro - no problem (or for that matter Italy and Belgium whose debt to GDP's were way over the odds), voted against the Constitution - no problem we'll rename it and you can vote again. Voted against some treaty or other Ireland/Denmark - no problem have another go.
Want a fig leaf emergency brake on FOM UK - not possible, wrong direction. The sky will fall, the slaughter of the first born will follow and the four horsemen of the apocalypse will ride over the horizon towards us.
Most British people, probably the vast majority were happy enough with the trading bit of the EU, but far more wary in degrees of the politics. Eventually the price of the politics rose and became more visible and we voted to leave. We faced a choice we should've faced years ago, but might still have been delayed by more years had circumstance not forced the vote.
Consent. Consent. Consent. As they gave away rebates, and vetos, and extended QMV our politicians of all stripes did not expressly seek our consent. They failed us, and so we were left with only the nuclear option.
Any who opposed a referendum on Lisbon wished we'd had one now?
Reading what Juncker says, I think that 'EUSSR' starts being the correct term for their project.
Incredible. Glad we are leaving.
But you are so wrong. The EU promotes values of liberal democracy, personal liberty and the rule of law, all of which were anathema to the USSR and somewhat si to its successor state. You can reasonably decide the EU is not for us without grossly misrepresenting it.
(E)USSR
Punishes people who want to leave ✔
Central planning with limited democratic oversight ✔
I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively
Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves..
Basically, we will fix the rules so we give no money to those who disagree with us.
#EUdemocracy
QMV will screw Ireland on tax, France and Germany are gunning for them
Yes it will and add in the extra contributions Ireland will be paying and eventually the penny will drop in Ireland that the EU is a place that they should not be part of. Probably take more than 5 years as the media and main parties are so pro-EU.
I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively
Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves..
Basically, we will fix the rules so we give no money to those who disagree with us.
#EUdemocracy
QMV will screw Ireland on tax, France and Germany are gunning for them
Wouldn't a move to QMV on tax require unanimous agreement for a new Treaty?
Wouldn't the Irish need a referendum on a new Treaty?
I would think and expect the Irish government would veto any moves to QMV while they still can - and if not that the Irish voters would. What happens when the Irish for the third time reject a referendum and possibly say "this time we mean it"?
I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively
Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves..
Basically, we will fix the rules so we give no money to those who disagree with us.
#EUdemocracy
QMV will screw Ireland on tax, France and Germany are gunning for them
Wouldn't a move to QMV on tax require unanimous agreement for a new Treaty?
Wouldn't the Irish need a referendum on a new Treaty?
I would think and expect the Irish government would veto any moves to QMV while they still can - and if not that the Irish voters would. What happens when the Irish for the third time reject a referendum and possibly say "this time we mean it"?
The Irish are in a bind. For all the "we're in the EU's corner" etc etc, which is perfectly true, the increasing frequency with which Varadkar and the foreign minister (Coveney?) are pushing the UK staying in the customs union, indicates that they are really worried that any other option is not going to end well for them.
That said, given Ireland is only about 1% of what's left of the EU when we leave, I'm sure the ever generous German tax payer will be (indirectly) asked to bung them enough to keep them sweet as "special transitional Brexit funding". Probably come at the price of 12% corporation tax rising sharply though.
Dave's deal specifically opted us out of the 'ever closer union' element. It was the ultimate cake-and-eat-it settlement. Sadly, the Leavers were too busy heaping derision upon it whilst being totally bereft of their own alternative. What an opportunity missed!
It makes no difference. It would not have stopped the move towards unification as that us the basis of the treaties that form the EU. It would simply have meant we would have been put in an j increasingly untenable position until we were forced out or forced to accept unification. The status quo was not and never will be an option.
I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively
Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves..
Basically, we will fix the rules so we give no money to those who disagree with us.
#EUdemocracy
QMV will screw Ireland on tax, France and Germany are gunning for them
Wouldn't a move to QMV on tax require unanimous agreement for a new Treaty?
Wouldn't the Irish need a referendum on a new Treaty?
I would think and expect the Irish government would veto any moves to QMV while they still can - and if not that the Irish voters would. What happens when the Irish for the third time reject a referendum and possibly say "this time we mean it"?
The Irish are in a bind. For all the "we're in the EU's corner" etc etc, which is perfectly true, the increasing frequency with which Varadkar and the foreign minister (Coveney?) are pushing the UK staying in the customs union, indicates that they are really worried that any other option is not going to end well for them.
That said, given Ireland is only about 1% of what's left of the EU when we leave, I'm sure the ever generous German tax payer will be (indirectly) asked to bung them enough to keep them sweet as "special transitional Brexit funding". Probably come at the price of 12% corporation tax rising sharply though.
Agreeing to corporation tax rising sharply would be selling their soul. Would be a terrible decision.
I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively
Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves..
Basically, we will fix the rules so we give no money to those who disagree with us.
#EUdemocracy
QMV will screw Ireland on tax, France and Germany are gunning for them
Wouldn't a move to QMV on tax require unanimous agreement for a new Treaty?
Wouldn't the Irish need a referendum on a new Treaty?
I would think and expect the Irish government would veto any moves to QMV while they still can - and if not that the Irish voters would. What happens when the Irish for the third time reject a referendum and possibly say "this time we mean it"?
Ireland will have about the same weight as the Hamburg metro area in any new set up. It better like it because it's going to have to get used to it.
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
Ultimately that's what staying in means too...
The question is somewhat moot, given we're leaving, but I think you're wrong. It's certainly far more likely the European idealists will get their united states of Europe without us than had we stayed in. We have tipped the balance of power in their favour.
The idea we could ever have prevented it was always an illusion. Our membership of the EEC/EU was always characterised by Ever Closer Union no matter how much we might have objected at times.
Dave's deal specifically opted us out of the 'ever closer union' element. It was the ultimate cake-and-eat-it settlement. Sadly, the Leavers were too busy heaping derision upon it whilst being totally bereft of their own alternative. What an opportunity missed!
Reading what Juncker says, I think that 'EUSSR' starts being the correct term for their project.
Incredible. Glad we are leaving.
We make it far more likely by leaving.
It was increasingly apparent that that's the way the EU glitterati wanted (if sincerely and not maliciously I accept) and though we could've slowed it substantially for sure, nothing was ultimately going to halt the "Project", certainly nothing as trivial as if people actually wanted it or not.
The EU can be as flexible as it likes as long as that flexibility leads, however meanderingly, towards ever closer union. Greece and its basket case figures to get in the Euro - no problem (or for that matter Italy and Belgium whose debt to GDP's were way over the odds), voted against the Constitution - no problem we'll rename it and you can vote again. Voted against some treaty or other Ireland/Denmark - no problem have another go.
Want a fig leaf emergency brake on FOM UK - not possible, wrong direction. The sky will fall, the slaughter of the first born will follow and the four horsemen of the apocalypse will ride over the horizon towards us.
Most British people, probably the vast majority were happy enough with the trading bit of the EU, but far more wary in degrees of the politics. Eventually the price of the politics rose and became more visible and we voted to leave. We faced a choice we should've faced years ago, but might still have been delayed by more years had circumstance not forced the vote.
Consent. Consent. Consent. As they gave away rebates, and vetos, and extended QMV our politicians of all stripes did not expressly seek our consent. They failed us, and so we were left with only the nuclear option.
Any who opposed a referendum on Lisbon wished we'd had one now?
Central planning with limited democratic oversight ✔
Non-supporting political opinions shut out ✔
Also the UK.
Weren't a lot of people in favour of "punishing" Scotland if they had voted for independence ?
We still have a lot of centralised planning with too much power in Westminster and Whitehall.
Yes, to a point. Try arguing for higher taxes and increased welfare spending and see how far you get.
I definitely was not in favour of punishing Scotland. Others on here will know more about this than I do, but as an example I couldn't work out how Scotland could take its share of the national debt.
I guess we could have stopped paying pensions, but presumably, anyone born before independence would have had the right to move to rUK and claim their state pension.
I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively
Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves..
Basically, we will fix the rules so we give no money to those who disagree with us.
#EUdemocracy
QMV will screw Ireland on tax, France and Germany are gunning for them
Wouldn't a move to QMV on tax require unanimous agreement for a new Treaty?
Wouldn't the Irish need a referendum on a new Treaty?
I would think and expect the Irish government would veto any moves to QMV while they still can - and if not that the Irish voters would. What happens when the Irish for the third time reject a referendum and possibly say "this time we mean it"?
The Irish are in a bind. For all the "we're in the EU's corner" etc etc, which is perfectly true, the increasing frequency with which Varadkar and the foreign minister (Coveney?) are pushing the UK staying in the customs union, indicates that they are really worried that any other option is not going to end well for them.
That said, given Ireland is only about 1% of what's left of the EU when we leave, I'm sure the ever generous German tax payer will be (indirectly) asked to bung them enough to keep them sweet as "special transitional Brexit funding". Probably come at the price of 12% corporation tax rising sharply though.
Agreeing to corporation tax rising sharply would be selling their soul. Would be a terrible decision.
I agree, but that's the decision coming down the track at them in the next few years.
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
so without Davis, Fox, Boris etc then it could indeed be a great success? That's what your implying. But judging from your previous posts I don't think you mean that ...
I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively
Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves..
Basically, we will fix the rules so we give no money to those who disagree with us.
#EUdemocracy
QMV will screw Ireland on tax, France and Germany are gunning for them
Wouldn't a move to QMV on tax require unanimous agreement for a new Treaty?
Wouldn't the Irish need a referendum on a new Treaty?
I would think and expect the Irish government would veto any moves to QMV while they still can - and if not that the Irish voters would. What happens when the Irish for the third time reject a referendum and possibly say "this time we mean it"?
The Irish are in a bind. For all the "we're in the EU's corner" etc etc, which is perfectly true, the increasing frequency with which Varadkar and the foreign minister (Coveney?) are pushing the UK staying in the customs union, indicates that they are really worried that any other option is not going to end well for them.
That said, given Ireland is only about 1% of what's left of the EU when we leave, I'm sure the ever generous German tax payer will be (indirectly) asked to bung them enough to keep them sweet as "special transitional Brexit funding". Probably come at the price of 12% corporation tax rising sharply though.
Agreeing to corporation tax rising sharply would be selling their soul. Would be a terrible decision.
I agree, but that's the decision coming down the track at them in the next few years.
Only if they agree to it. They didn't agree to it when they were bankrupt in the financial crisis, I don't see why they'd be dumb enough to agree to it now.
Dave's deal specifically opted us out of the 'ever closer union' element. It was the ultimate cake-and-eat-it settlement. Sadly, the Leavers were too busy heaping derision upon it whilst being totally bereft of their own alternative. What an opportunity missed!
Don't - you'll tip him over the edge again.
Hague said "save the Pound" and lost. Cameron said "we'll never join the Euro" and lost.
The lesson is that saying bad things about the Euro is electoral poison in this country.
I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively
Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves..
Basically, we will fix the rules so we give no money to those who disagree with us.
#EUdemocracy
QMV will screw Ireland on tax, France and Germany are gunning for them
Wouldn't a move to QMV on tax require unanimous agreement for a new Treaty?
Wouldn't the Irish need a referendum on a new Treaty?
I would think and expect the Irish government would veto any moves to QMV while they still can - and if not that the Irish voters would. What happens when the Irish for the third time reject a referendum and possibly say "this time we mean it"?
Ireland will have about the same weight as the Hamburg metro area in any new set up. It better like it because it's going to have to get used to it.
Mr. Eagles, I'm confused by your position. You did say, pre-vote, that you believed we should leave, but 10 years down the line after another referendum. Why would that be easier?
Depending on what May says in about a week (21st, I think) that *may* [ahem] open the door to another vote. I think it unlikely, but a plausible possibility.
There's still a total failure to look at matters of integration and defending British cultural values (such as not raping people because they're white working class children or not looking the other way because the rapists are Pakistani Muslims) which is more critical, I would argue, to the migration debate than the actual numbers involved.
We're certainly in the middle of interesting times. And they won't be ending for a while yet.
Because Brexit is a process that cannot be squeezed into a two year time frame.
Brexit should be a process and not an event.
You want to re-join, with all the bells and whistles, if necessary.
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
I don't want to rejoin the EU if it means adopting the Euro, The EU Army, and Schengen.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
so without Davis, Fox, Boris etc then it could indeed be a great success? That's what your implying. But judging from your previous posts I don't think you mean that ...
Yes a success without those and a lengthy transitional period to get it all sorted out.
Central planning with limited democratic oversight ✔
Non-supporting political opinions shut out ✔
Also the UK.
Weren't a lot of people in favour of "punishing" Scotland if they had voted for independence ?
We still have a lot of centralised planning with too much power in Westminster and Whitehall.
Yes, to a point. Try arguing for higher taxes and increased welfare spending and see how far you get.
I don't know but I would hope not. The best thing for the UK to do after a vote for Scottish independence would be to do everything in our power to make it a success even at some short term marginal cost to ourselves. In the long run it would be far better for us to have a prosperous successful neighbour sharing our island.
Comments
It's actually quite hard to work out what you truly want from what you post on here, even though I have my own view.
https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/907923452459438080
Years of restrictions and austerity for those on the dole have made work pay better than not working, for the first time in years for many. So they're now taking up jobs. These are unskilled people who would otherwise be on the dole, they're not ready for high skilled jobs.
But I believe in a work ethic and years of working could see some of these people develop their skills and progress. Plus the children of these families now see parents who work rather than sit on the dole.
My fear is that if Brexit is a long term disaster then the country may vote to rejoin the EU even if it means adopting all of those.
That's what Brexit needs to be success. I fear whilst David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and Theresa May are running the Brexit show, Brexit looks like being a disaster.
But, I'm unwilling to rule anything out given the events of the last few years.
I think he wants to be controversial, that's all.
#EUdemocracy
I can see Jezza as PM.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/09/if-youre-not-mentally-prepared-for-corbyn-as-prime-minister-then-you-should-be/
A huge chunk of those entering the workforce now have a really sh*t future ahead of them.
They're facing ad-hoc employment on the wrong end of an app, renting a room in a shared house for life.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089049/?ref_=ttep_ep2
The capital that has flooded the world isn't trickling down, it's investing itself trying to generate a return.
That's a disaster for those without capital - ie, the young and the poor.
It was Alastair Meeks who nearly gave me a heart attack on 8th June, with his "I think Corbyn should now be favourite to be PM" post.
Ultimately that's what staying in means too
Europoliticos have been very open in saying so for decades
Only british politicians have lied to their electorates in pretending that's not what is going to happen
Dave didn't want the CS working on plans for Brexit because it might give it credibility once they leaked (as they were bound to do).
So who do we blame for not being ready when the country voted 'No, thanks'. Who then disappeared like the amateur he was?
Sorry, I was going to leave it there.
PS I'll vote for you as dictator of Yorkshire. They deserve you.
they need all the help they can get
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula-one/41255147
@Casino_Royale have a look at PMQs
There were some shockers, like seeing Southgate, Kensington, and Canterbury go, or the majority in Putney slashed to 1,500, as well as the rumour that Shipley had gone, but it was clear from an early stage that there would be enough good results from Scotland and the Midlands, and enough holds in Conservative marginals, to return a Conservative government.
https://twitter.com/HarryHayfield/status/907930990441631745
Root and branch reform of the Lords
Electoral Reform for the HoC, to a system based on PR
A written constitution
A bill of rights
Local Government Reform to enable proper regional democracy.
That might have offered a degree of compensation for the benefits being lost. But the Tories would never offer any of that. They're too wedded to English Antediluvianism.
Of course, had UKIP opened their own ices shop it would only have served vanilla and toppings would have been banned, to prevent hundreds and thousands swarming in"
from https://twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/907671417210142722
The BoJo story is good too. Both feet in his mouth.
I shat myself.
Reading what Juncker says, I think that 'EUSSR' starts being the correct term for their project.
Incredible. Glad we are leaving.
The problem is if the status quo works to your advantage, why would you want to change it ?
This bigger debate about what kind of Britain, politically, socially, culturally and economically we want to have post-EU membership and in particular our relationship with the rest of the world, could have been had after 23/6/16 but the referendum losers were too busy complaining and the referendum winners were too busy gloating.
We lost the thick end of a year in recrimination and rancour and then topped it off by a waste of an election which has basically got us nowhere slowly. Now, we have 18 months to try and organise our future and the Government don't want us to think about it but simply to trust them.
I don't trust them.
All three have a track record of being lying toerags.
Ireland is at risk.
edit: @Alanbrooke got there first.
How many more efficiency gains from that to "having 27 different constitutions, parliamentary systems and sets of laws is inefficient"?
It's certainly far more likely the European idealists will get their united states of Europe without us than had we stayed in. We have tipped the balance of power in their favour.
That's (a) non sequitur of the day, and (b) your logic not mine.
Did the DUP get the money up front?
I'm intrigued that tuition fees are not deemed to be supply, but that may be a technical matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/11/tory-dup-1bn-payment-needs-parliaments-approval-after-gina-miller-challenge
Looks like a DUP warning shot. They wantz their moneyz.
At no point has the government made clear that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. But it will (probably).
Of course additional funding for Northern Ireland requires parliamentary approval - it will be included in the budget plans as normal.
This is just the DUP sticking up for their voters.
The EU can be as flexible as it likes as long as that flexibility leads, however meanderingly, towards ever closer union. Greece and its basket case figures to get in the Euro - no problem (or for that matter Italy and Belgium whose debt to GDP's were way over the odds), voted against the Constitution - no problem we'll rename it and you can vote again. Voted against some treaty or other Ireland/Denmark - no problem have another go.
Want a fig leaf emergency brake on FOM UK - not possible, wrong direction. The sky will fall, the slaughter of the first born will follow and the four horsemen of the apocalypse will ride over the horizon towards us.
Most British people, probably the vast majority were happy enough with the trading bit of the EU, but far more wary in degrees of the politics. Eventually the price of the politics rose and became more visible and we voted to leave. We faced a choice we should've faced years ago, but might still have been delayed by more years had circumstance not forced the vote.
Consent. Consent. Consent. As they gave away rebates, and vetos, and extended QMV our politicians of all stripes did not expressly seek our consent. They failed us, and so we were left with only the nuclear option.
Any who opposed a referendum on Lisbon wished we'd had one now?
Punishes people who want to leave ✔
Central planning with limited democratic oversight ✔
Non-supporting political opinions shut out ✔
Wouldn't the Irish need a referendum on a new Treaty?
I would think and expect the Irish government would veto any moves to QMV while they still can - and if not that the Irish voters would. What happens when the Irish for the third time reject a referendum and possibly say "this time we mean it"?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4879808/Osborne-s-chopped-freezer-jibe-May.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK
#psychopath
Weren't a lot of people in favour of "punishing" Scotland if they had voted for independence ?
We still have a lot of centralised planning with too much power in Westminster and Whitehall.
Yes, to a point. Try arguing for higher taxes and increased welfare spending and see how far you get.
That said, given Ireland is only about 1% of what's left of the EU when we leave, I'm sure the ever generous German tax payer will be (indirectly) asked to bung them enough to keep them sweet as "special transitional Brexit funding". Probably come at the price of 12% corporation tax rising sharply though.
We have full democratic control over Westminster, we don't over the EU.
You can get to being Leader of the Opposition and one of the favourites to become PM.
Crossrail 9 is announced, cutting London journey times by 2%.
News of its commission reaches The North by horse and cart.
I guess we could have stopped paying pensions, but presumably, anyone born before independence would have had the right to move to rUK and claim their state pension.
Cameron said "we'll never join the Euro" and lost.
The lesson is that saying bad things about the Euro is electoral poison in this country.
By the time all the budgets go awry, it will be called HorSe2 and that will be that.