Bank of England governor Mark Carney tells the Treasury Select Committee that Brexit means real household incomes are about £900 lower than forecast in May 2016, "which is a lot of money"
Leavers seen pretty confident of winning a vote on the deal, and personally I think they’re right.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
'cept it will also be divisive, say 45:55 Remain or Leave.
We are where we are - the best thing to do is to get on with whatever the hell Brexit Theresa May can negotiate and take stock in five years time.
The elephant in the room of course is that (now not so distant) 2022 GE. If there is any kind of transition/implementation/extension in play then goodness it will be all to play for for Labour then offering anything from EEA to staying in to any other bright idea. Because at that point the Cons will have become so identified with Brexit, and Brexit will still be the main motivating factor for the electorate (IMO) that in order to differentiate themselves they will need something pretty powerful to distinguish themselves.
Brexit has already consumed all political and legislative energy for two years. Let’s get it over with, once and for all, in 2018. Can we stand another 4-6 more years of this?
Bank of England governor Mark Carney tells the Treasury Select Committee that Brexit means real household incomes are about £900 lower than forecast in May 2016, "which is a lot of money"
What's ugly about "controlling immigration" and "more money for the NHS"?
Those are not just Leave's commitments but were both Cameron's commitments in both 2010 and 2015 too. I don't recall you calling Cameron's manifesto ugly but apologies if you did.
I think they were Ed Miliband's commitments too. Well, the NHS was simply "with the time to care" but the "Controls on Immigration" pledge was pretty clear.
I'll say it again, reducing immigration to tens of thousands was and still is government policy and if any party delivered the money to the NHS they would probably win a landslide.
The issue you are having is that Leave made difficult argue against points. Turkey and the NHS money were two of the toughest. We've been through why enough times so there's no need to retread that ground.
You want to call it all xenophobic because it's a safety blanket for you. It saves you from having to look at why even with government support, support of the whole British establishment, both major parties and almost all business bodies you still couldn't muster a victory against a rag-tag bunch of no-marks.
The ground doesn't seem to have been trodden enough for the point to have sunk through your skull that it was a xenophobic lie.
1) Turkey is not joining the EU. It was not joining the EU in 2016. It is not joining the EU now. If it ever joins the EU, it will look radically different from how it looked in 2016 and how it looks now.
2) To suggest, therefore, that Turkey is joining the EU was a lie.
3) Why was this statement made? The poster makes it clear with its inclusion of "(population 76 million)". What is the relevance of this statement? The idea that untold numbers of Turks were imminently descending on Britain. This was visually reinforced by little footsteps marching.
4) This was as noted above untrue. But even if it hadn't been, the purpose of this (untrue) statement was to raise fears in the minds of ordinary Britons that hordes of Turks were coming. This was fanning xenophobia. There is no other way of interpreting this.
5) So yes, the referendum was won on a xenophobic lie. It now needs to be delivered upon by the rag-tag bunch of no-marks. They are floundering and failing because they are slowly realising what they have signed up to do.
Leavers seen pretty confident of winning a vote on the deal, and personally I think they’re right.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
'cept it will also be divisive, say 45:55 Remain or Leave.
We are where we are - the best thing to do is to get on with whatever the hell Brexit Theresa May can negotiate and take stock in five years time.
The elephant in the room of course is that (now not so distant) 2022 GE. If there is any kind of transition/implementation/extension in play then goodness it will be all to play for for Labour then offering anything from EEA to staying in to any other bright idea. Because at that point the Cons will have become so identified with Brexit, and Brexit will still be the main motivating factor for the electorate (IMO) that in order to differentiate themselves they will need something pretty powerful to distinguish themselves.
Brexit has already consumed all political and legislative energy for two years. Let’s get it over with, once and for all, in 2018. Can we stand another 4-6 more years of this?
It won't be sorted this year. No chance at all. None of the required legislation has been enacted and most has not even been drafted. This will run and run.
Mr. B, there may be circumstances where such changes are relevant, or essential. This isn't one of them.
Edited extra bit: also, I (having forgotten Grosjean's 3 place grid penalty) made a post earlier with some early betting thoughts on Monaco which might interest you.
The Monaco bets are indeed of interest, although you do seem to have taken something of a shotgun approach, aiming at many targets at once... a couple of the very long odds look very good value (albeit not exactly bankers).
Leavers seen pretty confident of winning a vote on the deal, and personally I think they’re right.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
'cept it will also be divisive, say 45:55 Remain or Leave.
We are where we are - the best thing to do is to get on with whatever the hell Brexit Theresa May can negotiate and take stock in five years time.
The elephant in the room of course is that (now not so distant) 2022 GE. If there is any kind of transition/implementation/extension in play then goodness it will be all to play for for Labour then offering anything from EEA to staying in to any other bright idea. Because at that point the Cons will have become so identified with Brexit, and Brexit will still be the main motivating factor for the electorate (IMO) that in order to differentiate themselves they will need something pretty powerful to distinguish themselves.
Brexit has already consumed all political and legislative energy for two years. Let’s get it over with, once and for all, in 2018. Can we stand another 4-6 more years of this?
It won't be sorted this year. No chance at all. None of the required legislation has been enacted and most has not even been drafted. This will run and run.
All of the required legislation has been enacted, dating back to 1972. All it takes is one letter from Theresa...
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
The main party which has been mired in Jew-baiting allegations campaigned for Remain.
If Peston has only discovered today that people are still arguing over Brexit and didn't realise that prior to Sunday's show then that doesn't say much about his powers of observation as a political journalist.
Mr. Glenn, people were understandably irritated Peston's entire guest list was pro-Remain. He's a berk.
Mr. B, yeah, the multiple contingencies do make them improbable, but the shorter (23/26) one in particular looks like it could be priced a little long. And, as I said, tiny stakes.
PB Remainer: we could have this, this, or this type of Brexit. PB Leaver: Traitor!
PB Remainer: The Brexit promised during the campaign is not deliverable PB Leaver: We didn't promise anything PB Remainer: You won't be disappointed then? PB Leaver: Traitor!
I'll say it again, reducing immigration to tens of thousands was and still is government policy and if any party delivered the money to the NHS they would probably win a landslide.
The issue you are having is that Leave made difficult argue against points. Turkey and the NHS money were two of the toughest. We've been through why enough times so there's no need to retread that ground.
You want to call it all xenophobic because it's a safety blanket for you. It saves you from having to look at why even with government support, support of the whole British establishment, both major parties and almost all business bodies you still couldn't muster a victory against a rag-tag bunch of no-marks.
The ground doesn't seem to have been trodden enough for the point to have sunk through your skull that it was a xenophobic lie.
1) Turkey is not joining the EU. It was not joining the EU in 2016. It is not joining the EU now. If it ever joins the EU, it will look radically different from how it looked in 2016 and how it looks now.
2) To suggest, therefore, that Turkey is joining the EU was a lie.
3) Why was this statement made? The poster makes it clear with its inclusion of "(population 76 million)". What is the relevance of this statement? The idea that untold numbers of Turks were imminently descending on Britain. This was visually reinforced by little footsteps marching.
4) This was as noted above untrue. But even if it hadn't been, the purpose of this (untrue) statement was to raise fears in the minds of ordinary Britons that hordes of Turks were coming. This was fanning xenophobia. There is no other way of interpreting this.
5) So yes, the referendum was won on a xenophobic lie. It now needs to be delivered upon by the rag-tag bunch of no-marks. They are floundering and failing because they are slowly realising what they have signed up to do.
The fact that you and others think it’s a lie to remind the electorate of the British Government’s policy with respect to Turkish membership of the EU shows how that organisation has suffused our politics with deceit and double-talk.
If Cameron wanted Britain to stay in the EU, he should have announced that he would veto Turkey’s accession, or legislate for a U.K. referendum on the matter. Fundamentally, our establishment didn’t think the British people deserved a say on this as on so many other topics, unlike the people of France and Austria.
Mr. P, given the stark division, over a long period of time there should be an approximate balance. To have editions entirely one-sided (which was what I wrote of) invites criticism and accusations of being partisan.
Mr. Glenn, Clarkson is one person with a view, he doesn't host a weekly political programme or edit the political news for ITV. You naughty sausage.
So of course there's nothing else. That was Brexit. Time to deliver that ugly mandate.
So nothing, then, I take it.
As I said before, frenzied impotence.
As I said before, desperate to evade responsibility for your involvement in whipping up xenophobia.
You delude yourself that the public care about your crazy obsessions about the EU. They voted to keep Muslims out of Britain and spend imagined savings on the NHS. That's all the campaign they saw. That's all the campaign you now have to deliver.
So this is a genuine question: do you think that there might be genuine reasons why people might be concerned about large scale immigration from Muslim countries beyond simple xenophobia? Or do you think that any concern about such immigration is wholly unjustified?
1) Turkey is not joining the EU. It was not joining the EU in 2016. It is not joining the EU now. If it ever joins the EU, it will look radically different from how it looked in 2016 and how it looks now.
Where did "in 2016" come from?
Did the EU poster say that Turkey is joining the EU in 2016? No. It simply said that Turkey was joining which is factually accurate, the accession process was underway and it was our own government's policy that Turkey should join.
"We didn't mean it" seems to be your own counter to that. That makes Cameron and others who said Turkey should join and approved of the accession process being underway the liars not people who took him at his word.
It simply said that Turkey was joining which is factually accurate, the accession process was underway and it was our own government's policy that Turkey should join.
I have a policy of winning an Olympic medal, and the process of training for it is underway
It is not factually accurate to claim I am going to win
Leavers seen pretty confident of winning a vote on the deal, and personally I think they’re right.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
'cept it will also be divisive, say 45:55 Remain or Leave.
We are where we are - the best thing to do is to get on with whatever the hell Brexit Theresa May can negotiate and take stock in five years time.
The elephant in the room of course is that (now not so distant) 2022 GE. If there is any kind of transition/implementation/extension in play then goodness it will be all to play for for Labour then offering anything from EEA to staying in to any other bright idea. Because at that point the Cons will have become so identified with Brexit, and Brexit will still be the main motivating factor for the electorate (IMO) that in order to differentiate themselves they will need something pretty powerful to distinguish themselves.
Brexit has already consumed all political and legislative energy for two years. Let’s get it over with, once and for all, in 2018. Can we stand another 4-6 more years of this?
Mr Walker - I, as a staunch Remainer / Remoaner / Traitor / Burn the Witch, believe that Brexit HAS to happen. We need to Leave and if it is a WTO Brexit then so much the better. It seems to be the only way that this stupid thing will ever be settled.
"It's irritating to hear people talk about Brexit if they don't agree with me" is perhaps peak PB Brexit.
Nobodies saying that, just that a political program should have some balance not have six people all representing the same minority opinion.
Agree. And before anyone goes onto these programmes they could perhaps register their views so that no one with incorrect ideas about anything in particular slips through.
Bank of England governor Mark Carney tells the Treasury Select Committee that Brexit means real household incomes are about £900 lower than forecast in May 2016, "which is a lot of money"
Mr. P, it takes a special set of spectacles to read the message "Both sides should have their opinions represented" and reach the conclusion it means only one side should.
"It's irritating to hear people talk about Brexit if they don't agree with me" is perhaps peak PB Brexit.
Nobodies saying that, just that a political program should have some balance not have six people all representing the same minority opinion.
Agree. And before anyone goes onto these programmes they could perhaps register their views so that no one with incorrect ideas about anything in particular slips through.
Maybe we can get remainers to wear armbands so we can see who they are in public?
Bank of England governor Mark Carney tells the Treasury Select Committee that Brexit means real household incomes are about £900 lower than forecast in May 2016, "which is a lot of money"
Agree. And before anyone goes onto these programmes they could perhaps register their views so that no one with incorrect ideas about anything in particular slips through.
Probably safer to ban live political debate altogether.
Then all messages can be approved for broadcast to prevent any seditious messages escaping.
I am sure all right minded people agree with this.
Leavers seen pretty confident of winning a vote on the deal, and personally I think they’re right.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
'cept it will also be divisive, say 45:55 Remain or Leave.
We are where we are - the best thing to do is to get on with whatever the hell Brexit Theresa May can negotiate and take stock in five years time.
The elephant in the room of course is that (now not so distant) 2022 GE. If there is any kind of transition/implementation/extension in play then goodness it will be all to play for for Labour then offering anything from EEA to staying in to any other bright idea. Because at that point the Cons will have become so identified with Brexit, and Brexit will still be the main motivating factor for the electorate (IMO) that in order to differentiate themselves they will need something pretty powerful to distinguish themselves.
Brexit has already consumed all political and legislative energy for two years. Let’s get it over with, once and for all, in 2018. Can we stand another 4-6 more years of this?
Mr Walker - I, as a staunch Remainer / Remoaner / Traitor / Burn the Witch, believe that Brexit HAS to happen. We need to Leave and if it is a WTO Brexit then so much the better. It seems to be the only way that this stupid thing will ever be settled.
maybe it would be over sooner if Remainers stopped picking the scab every 5 minutes and moved on to something else
40,000 premature deaths from diesel fumes and nobody says much about it
The fact that you and others think it’s a lie to remind the electorate of the British Government’s policy with respect to Turkish membership of the EU shows how that organisation has suffused our politics with deceit and double-talk.
If Cameron wanted Britain to stay in the EU, he should have announced that he would veto Turkey’s accession, or legislate for a U.K. referendum on the matter. Fundamentally, our establishment didn’t think the British people deserved a say on this as on so many other topics, unlike the people of France and Austria.
You misunderstand the policy. It was not to let Turkey join the EU *now*, but to allow them to join once they'd undergone a lengthy process of reform in order to meet the required AC commitment.
A Turkey that met all the AC criteria to join the EU, and whose membership was agreed by all the countries of the EU, would be a very different (and IMV better) country. The argument that dangling the carrot of EU membership in front of them is a good way to encourage them to reform in a positive manner - although goodness knows who they'd have got over the hurdle of the vote.
As it happens, Turkey's progress to meeting the AC was so glacial as to be no-existent. But it was in our interests, and the EU's, to try to encourage them to reform along EU (and western) lines. This is broadly what their great hero Ataturk wanted.
Sadly, the positive process has been replaced with a negative one of distrust. Partly as a result, Turkey is regressing and aligning with countries like Russia. I'd argue that is bad for Turks, bad for the EU and bad for us.
I always thought tea was for kids and dinner for adults ?
Get those hoitie toitie Nottinghamshire types.
I'm afraid this one betrays the dilution of my Manchester heritage. Dinner is the main meal at whatever time, lunch or tea the smaller meal. As a kid I typically had school dinner and sandwiches for tea, so the conflict didn't arise.
Mr. Pulpstar, such maps can often be a bit iffy. One on the word for 'splinter' and variants suggested Yorkshire doesn't use 'spell' any more (at least some of us do) and one about every European independence movement coming off also suggested Yorkshire would be independent (the number who want is tiny).
Maybe we can get remainers to wear armbands so we can see who they are in public?
Maybe a conspicuous colour, or a special shape? Or both!
As long as it has the word "TRAITOR" on there in big bold letters, anything works.
It's going to be tricky filtering out your wedding list, isn't it.
Thankfully we tend to have "no politics" rules at events. I was at a wedding in Greece on Friday after the referendum and the bride sent out a message in the WhatsApp group that discussion of the result was banned for the day. Much to the disappointment of all the Greeks.
Bank of England governor Mark Carney tells the Treasury Select Committee that Brexit means real household incomes are about £900 lower than forecast in May 2016, "which is a lot of money"
his benchmark is his own forecast which may not be the most reliable since the economy was meant to be in deep recession now
PWC came out today and said they don't believe the first quarter growth numbers as they are not consistent with indicators elsewhere in the economy
Carney's problem is he's turning in to the boy who cried wolf
Has PWC been reading PB?
my only concern with PWCs statement is I don't trust experts :-)
Too many new jobs, too much tax being generated, improvements to our balance of payments does not equal 0.1% growth. When growth goes up the fall in productivity will go down. What’s the betting on construction being upgraded again, despite the beast from the east?
Nottinghamshire surprises me . Anyway it is Breakfast, lunch then tea as per the cricket.
My wife is Lancastrian, although I brought her with me when I came back to Essex over 50 years ago. Still says ‘tea’ for our (usually) cooked 6pm meal, unless we’re going out for the evening in which case we go out to dinner. I say dinner.
....the public have become more positive about immigration. Far fewer see it as a major political priority and more see it as positive for Britain’s economy and culture. What is more, this shift is seen across the board — it isn’t a case of liberal “Remainers” rallying behind migrants, while migrant sceptic “Leavers” dig in their heels. The positive shift in attitudes seems to be occurring across the political and social spectrum.
....why isn’t this shift more widely known and discussed on the pro-migration, “Remain” side of politics. Here I must resort to anecdote and unrepresentative data a little, but it is my firm impression that politically active “Remainers” and migration liberals tend to believe things have become worse since Brexit......It does seem that the conventional wisdom among this unusually well informed and engaged group is that migration attitudes have hardened since Brexit. Yet the evidence robustly points in the opposite direction
Bank of England governor Mark Carney tells the Treasury Select Committee that Brexit means real household incomes are about £900 lower than forecast in May 2016, "which is a lot of money"
his benchmark is his own forecast which may not be the most reliable since the economy was meant to be in deep recession now
PWC came out today and said they don't believe the first quarter growth numbers as they are not consistent with indicators elsewhere in the economy
Carney's problem is he's turning in to the boy who cried wolf
Has PWC been reading PB?
my only concern with PWCs statement is I don't trust experts :-)
Too many new jobs, too much tax being generated, improvements to our balance of payments does not equal 0.1% growth. When growth goes up the fall in productivity will go down. What’s the betting on construction being upgraded again, despite the beast from the east?
If you were to look at the initial estimates for construction output, it would have scarcely grown since 2013. Revisions show that in fact output has grown by 27% since then. Overall, that amounts to about £30 bn of output.
1) Turkey is not joining the EU. It was not joining the EU in 2016. It is not joining the EU now. If it ever joins the EU, it will look radically different from how it looked in 2016 and how it looks now.
Where did "in 2016" come from?
Did the EU poster say that Turkey is joining the EU in 2016? No. It simply said that Turkey was joining which is factually accurate, the accession process was underway and it was our own government's policy that Turkey should join.
"We didn't mean it" seems to be your own counter to that. That makes Cameron and others who said Turkey should join and approved of the accession process being underway the liars not people who took him at his word.
It's a shame we have to go around this topic yet again, but Turkey was 'not joining'. They were negotiating to join; they would only be joining once they'd met the requisite AC commitments and been voted in.
(There was also the issue of a Turkish referendum on membership once the AC had been met; the result of this referendum cannot be taken for granted either.)
To make it clear: Turkey applied for membership of the EEC in 1987 Negotiations started in 2005. In eleven years up to 2006, only 11 of 35 AC chapters had been opened, and only one completed. Negotiations were ongoing.
If you are negotiating a deal, the deal is not agreed. That is the status Turkey was in; they would only be 'joining' after the AC had been met, an internal referendum had been won, and they had been voted in by the other EU member states.
....the public have become more positive about immigration. Far fewer see it as a major political priority and more see it as positive for Britain’s economy and culture. What is more, this shift is seen across the board — it isn’t a case of liberal “Remainers” rallying behind migrants, while migrant sceptic “Leavers” dig in their heels. The positive shift in attitudes seems to be occurring across the political and social spectrum.
....why isn’t this shift more widely known and discussed on the pro-migration, “Remain” side of politics. Here I must resort to anecdote and unrepresentative data a little, but it is my firm impression that politically active “Remainers” and migration liberals tend to believe things have become worse since Brexit......It does seem that the conventional wisdom among this unusually well informed and engaged group is that migration attitudes have hardened since Brexit. Yet the evidence robustly points in the opposite direction
Bank of England governor Mark Carney tells the Treasury Select Committee that Brexit means real household incomes are about £900 lower than forecast in May 2016, "which is a lot of money"
his benchmark is his own forecast which may not be the most reliable since the economy was meant to be in deep recession now
PWC came out today and said they don't believe the first quarter growth numbers as they are not consistent with indicators elsewhere in the economy
Carney's problem is he's turning in to the boy who cried wolf
Has PWC been reading PB?
my only concern with PWCs statement is I don't trust experts :-)
Too many new jobs, too much tax being generated, improvements to our balance of payments does not equal 0.1% growth. When growth goes up the fall in productivity will go down. What’s the betting on construction being upgraded again, despite the beast from the east?
If you were to look at the initial estimates for construction output, it would have scarcely grown since 2013. Revisions show that in fact output has grown by 27% since then. Overall, that amounts to about £30 bn of output.
It’s a relatively small part of the economy, less than 10%, but it is a major source of subsequent revisions. My concern is that these errors lead to policy mistakes. For example we will find that interest rates should have gone up in May after all.
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
'We do less trade with the whole Commonwealth than we do with Germany....'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
What about Owen Jones who organised his persecution by taking a single tweet out of context (having lost the Lewisham East nomination)? Feels a bit like bringing the Labour Party into disrepute....
Bank of England governor Mark Carney tells the Treasury Select Committee that Brexit means real household incomes are about £900 lower than forecast in May 2016, "which is a lot of money"
his benchmark is his own forecast which may not be the most reliable since the economy was meant to be in deep recession now
PWC came out today and said they don't believe the first quarter growth numbers as they are not consistent with indicators elsewhere in the economy
Carney's problem is he's turning in to the boy who cried wolf
Has PWC been reading PB?
my only concern with PWCs statement is I don't trust experts :-)
Too many new jobs, too much tax being generated, improvements to our balance of payments does not equal 0.1% growth. When growth goes up the fall in productivity will go down. What’s the betting on construction being upgraded again, despite the beast from the east?
If you were to look at the initial estimates for construction output, it would have scarcely grown since 2013. Revisions show that in fact output has grown by 27% since then. Overall, that amounts to about £30 bn of output.
It’s a relatively small part of the economy, less than 10%, but it is a major source of subsequent revisions. My caconcern is that these errors lead to policy mistakes. For example we will find that interest rates should have gone up in May after all.
The economy isn't growing as it was in 1986 -1989, but back then, initial estimates had economic growth at 2-3% p.a., when in reality it was more like 5% p.a., , which resulted in huge policy errors.
1) Turkey is not joining the EU. It was not joining the EU in 2016. It is not joining the EU now. If it ever joins the EU, it will look radically different from how it looked in 2016 and how it looks now.
Where did "in 2016" come from?
Did the EU poster say that Turkey is joining the EU in 2016? No. It simply said that Turkey was joining which is factually accurate, the accession process was underway and it was our own government's policy that Turkey should join.
"We didn't mean it" seems to be your own counter to that. That makes Cameron and others who said Turkey should join and approved of the accession process being underway the liars not people who took him at his word.
It's a shame we have to go around this topic yet again, but Turkey was 'not joining'. They were negotiating to join; they would only be joining once they'd met the requisite AC commitments and been voted in.
(There was also the issue of a Turkish referendum on membership once the AC had been met; the result of this referendum cannot be taken for granted either.)
To make it clear: Turkey applied for membership of the EEC in 1987 Negotiations started in 2005. In eleven years up to 2006, only 11 of 35 AC chapters had been opened, and only one completed. Negotiations were ongoing.
If you are negotiating a deal, the deal is not agreed. That is the status Turkey was in; they would only be 'joining' after the AC had been met, an internal referendum had been won, and they had been voted in by the other EU member states.
Once they'd been voted in then we would say they have joined. Poland have been voted in and they're not joining the EU anymore, they're in the EU. Turkey were in the same accession process that Poland was in prior to being voted in.
Maybe we can get remainers to wear armbands so we can see who they are in public?
Maybe a conspicuous colour, or a special shape? Or both!
As long as it has the word "TRAITOR" on there in big bold letters, anything works.
It's going to be tricky filtering out your wedding list, isn't it.
Thankfully we tend to have "no politics" rules at events. I was at a wedding in Greece on Friday after the referendum and the bride sent out a message in the WhatsApp group that discussion of the result was banned for the day. Much to the disappointment of all the Greeks.
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
'We do less trade with the whole Commonwealth than we do with Germany....'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
If you'd expand your closed mind for a second you might realise there's potential to increase our trade with those nations beyond what we currently do. Especially if we can sign trade deals with them.
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
'We do less trade with the whole Commonwealth than we do with Germany....'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
1) Turkey is not joining the EU. It was not joining the EU in 2016. It is not joining the EU now. If it ever joins the EU, it will look radically different from how it looked in 2016 and how it looks now.
Where did "in 2016" come from?
Did the EU poster say that Turkey is joining the EU in 2016? No. It simply said that Turkey was joining which is factually accurate, the accession process was underway and it was our own government's policy that Turkey should join.
"We didn't mean it" seems to be your own counter to that. That makes Cameron and others who said Turkey should join and approved of the accession process being underway the liars not people who took him at his word.
It's a shame we have to go around this topic yet again, but Turkey was 'not joining'. They were negotiating to join; they would only be joining once they'd met the requisite AC commitments and been voted in.
(There was also the issue of a Turkish referendum on membership once the AC had been met; the result of this referendum cannot be taken for granted either.)
To make it clear: Turkey applied for membership of the EEC in 1987 Negotiations started in 2005. In eleven years up to 2006, only 11 of 35 AC chapters had been opened, and only one completed. Negotiations were ongoing.
If you are negotiating a deal, the deal is not agreed. That is the status Turkey was in; they would only be 'joining' after the AC had been met, an internal referendum had been won, and they had been voted in by the other EU member states.
As an EU enthusiast I always thought that even considering Turkey was a Very Bad Idea and Cameron’s support of it nonsensical.
Mind, I also thought having Romania, Bulgaria etc as full members was nearly as daft, and I wasn’t too keen on Poland. As for Greece, a competent auditor would surely have identified the financial position. Sadly, the audit was politically motivated.
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
Tone is a strange case. Maggie was always loathed/loved in equal measure. But to go, as Tone did, from being universally adored to a political pariah in a few years is surely unprecedented. (Even Richard Nixon had his defenders.) Was it just about Iraq? How would Tone be viewed now if he had told Dubya to take a leap all those years ago?
1) Turkey is not joining the EU. It was not joining the EU in 2016. It is not joining the EU now. If it ever joins the EU, it will look radically different from how it looked in 2016 and how it looks now.
Where did "in 2016" come from?
Did the EU poster say that Turkey is joining the EU in 2016? No. It simply said that Turkey was joining which is factually accurate, the accession process was underway and it was our own government's policy that Turkey should join.
"We didn't mean it" seems to be your own counter to that. That makes Cameron and others who said Turkey should join and approved of the accession process being underway the liars not people who took him at his word.
It's a shame we have to go around this topic yet again, but Turkey was 'not joining'. They were negotiating to join; they would only be joining once they'd met the requisite AC commitments and been voted in.
(There was also the issue of a Turkish referendum on membership once the AC had been met; the result of this referendum cannot be taken for granted either.)
To make it clear: Turkey applied for membership of the EEC in 1987 Negotiations started in 2005. In eleven years up to 2006, only 11 of 35 AC chapters had been opened, and only one completed. Negotiations were ongoing.
If you are negotiating a deal, the deal is not agreed. That is the status Turkey was in; they would only be 'joining' after the AC had been met, an internal referendum had been won, and they had been voted in by the other EU member states.
Once they'd been voted in then we would say they have joined. Poland have been voted in and they're not joining the EU anymore, they're in the EU. Turkey were in the same accession process that Poland was in prior to being voted in.
They have not been voted in, and they could not be voted in until they had met the AC - which, as I show above, was happening very slowly.
I look forward to you attending your next job interview and, as a candidate, asking for the keys to the executive washroom and for your name on a parking space as you shake their hands at the end.
In fact, Turkey weren't even at the interview stage. They were a pimply 12-year old Geek sending a letter to join NASA, and being told: "Sure, we'd love to consider you, but only when you pass all your exams and meet all these other criteria."
If only he'd chosed to spend his political capital on the Euro instead of Iraq.
A Euro referendum was winnable when he was at the peak of his powers, and it would have given all the unreconciled Eurosceptics a chance to vent their spleens without causing any damage. It should also have made Blair feel less beholden to Brown so history would have turned out differently in many ways.
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
'We do less trade with the whole Commonwealth than we do with Germany....'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
What about Owen Jones who organised his persecution by taking a single tweet out of context (having lost the Lewisham East nomination)? Feels a bit like bringing the Labour Party into disrepute....
This might (but probably won't) be quite a serious error by the leadership. It's one thing turning a blind eye to bad stuff by your own side. Actively purging from the party an opponent who's done nothing wrong is quite another.
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
Tone is a strange case. Maggie was always loathed/loved in equal measure. But to go, as Tone did, from being universally adored to a political pariah in a few years is surely unprecedented. (Even Richard Nixon had his defenders.) Was it just about Iraq? How would Tone be viewed now if he had told Dubya to take a leap all those years ago?
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
'We do less trade with the whole Commonwealth than we do with Germany....'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
If only he'd chosed to spend his political capital on the Euro instead of Iraq.
We would never have voted to join the Euro, even about half of Remainers oppose joining that and Iraq is at least now a democracy not a dictatorship even if hardly a liberal haven and ISIS has at last been defeated there
1) Turkey is not joining the EU. It was not joining the EU in 2016. It is not joining the EU now. If it ever joins the EU, it will look radically different from how it looked in 2016 and how it looks now.
Where did "in 2016" come from?
Did the EU poster say that Turkey is joining the EU in 2016? No. It simply said that Turkey was joining which is factually accurate, the accession process was underway and it was our own government's policy that Turkey should join.
"We didn't mean it" seems to be your own counter to that. That makes Cameron and others who said Turkey should join and approved of the accession process being underway the liars not people who took him at his word.
It's a shame we have to go around this topic yet again, but Turkey was 'not joining'. They were negotiating to join; they would only be joining once they'd met the requisite AC commitments and been voted in.
(There was also the issue of a Turkish referendum on membership once the AC had been met; the result of this referendum cannot be taken for granted either.)
To make it clear: Turkey applied for membership of the EEC in 1987 Negotiations started in 2005. In eleven years up to 2006, only 11 of 35 AC chapters had been opened, and only one completed. Negotiations were ongoing.
If you are negotiating a deal, the deal is not agreed. That is the status Turkey was in; they would only be 'joining' after the AC had been met, an internal referendum had been won, and they had been voted in by the other EU member states.
Once they'd been voted in then we would say they have joined. Poland have been voted in and they're not joining the EU anymore, they're in the EU. Turkey were in the same accession process that Poland was in prior to being voted in.
They have not been voted in, and they could not be voted in until they had met the AC - which, as I show above, was happening very slowly.
I look forward to you attending your next job interview and, as a candidate, asking for the keys to the executive washroom and for your name on a parking space as you shake their hands at the end.
In fact, Turkey weren't even at the interview stage. They were a pimply 12-year old Geek sending a letter to join NASA, and being told: "Sure, we'd love to consider you, but only when you pass all your exams and meet all these other criteria."
(worst. analogy. ever.)
I would only expect keys, parking space etc (if they go with the job) once I'd joined not before. Nobody said that Turkey had joined the EU.
1) Turkey is not joining the EU. It was not joining the EU in 2016. It is not joining the EU now. If it ever joins the EU, it will look radically different from how it looked in 2016 and how it looks now.
Where did "in 2016" come from?
Did the EU poster say that Turkey is joining the EU in 2016? No. It simply said that Turkey was joining which is factually accurate, the accession process was underway and it was our own government's policy that Turkey should join.
"We didn't mean it" seems to be your own counter to that. That makes Cameron and others who said Turkey should join and approved of the accession process being underway the liars not people who took him at his word.
It's a shame we have to go around this topic yet again, but Turkey was 'not joining'. They were negotiating to join; they would only be joining once they'd met the requisite AC commitments and been voted in.
(There was also the issue of a Turkish referendum on membership once the AC had been met; the result of this referendum cannot be taken for granted either.)
To make it clear: Turkey applied for membership of the EEC in 1987 Negotiations started in 2005. In eleven years up to 2006, only 11 of 35 AC chapters had been opened, and only one completed. Negotiations were ongoing.
If you are negotiating a deal, the deal is not agreed. That is the status Turkey was in; they would only be 'joining' after the AC had been met, an internal referendum had been won, and they had been voted in by the other EU member states.
As an EU enthusiast I always thought that even considering Turkey was a Very Bad Idea and Cameron’s support of it nonsensical.
Mind, I also thought having Romania, Bulgaria etc as full members was nearly as daft, and I wasn’t too keen on Poland. As for Greece, a competent auditor would surely have identified the financial position. Sadly, the audit was politically motivated.
Why didn't you want those countries to join?
(I agree that there was a certain amount of latitude given to some candidate members - as you say Greece - and that rather bit the EU on the backside a few years later. It's something I've criticised the EU before, and I daresay will mention it again in the future.)
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
Tone is a strange case. Maggie was always loathed/loved in equal measure. But to go, as Tone did, from being universally adored to a political pariah in a few years is surely unprecedented. (Even Richard Nixon had his defenders.) Was it just about Iraq? How would Tone be viewed now if he had told Dubya to take a leap all those years ago?
Would Dubya have gone ahead?
Probably, he would still have had Howard's Australia and Poland alongside
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
Tone is a strange case. Maggie was always loathed/loved in equal measure. But to go, as Tone did, from being universally adored to a political pariah in a few years is surely unprecedented. (Even Richard Nixon had his defenders.) Was it just about Iraq? How would Tone be viewed now if he had told Dubya to take a leap all those years ago?
Would Dubya have gone ahead?
Almost certainly yes: the NeoCons were convinced they could alter the course of human history towards goodness and light. It was a seductive potion many sipped.
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
Tone is a strange case. Maggie was always loathed/loved in equal measure. But to go, as Tone did, from being universally adored to a political pariah in a few years is surely unprecedented. (Even Richard Nixon had his defenders.) Was it just about Iraq? How would Tone be viewed now if he had told Dubya to take a leap all those years ago?
Would Dubya have gone ahead?
IDS should feature more prominently in the rogue's gallery over Iraq. His eagerness to ingratiate himself with Washington's most notorious hawks played a role in spooking Blair into believing he couldn't afford any transatlantic rift.
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
Tone is a strange case. Maggie was always loathed/loved in equal measure. But to go, as Tone did, from being universally adored to a political pariah in a few years is surely unprecedented. (Even Richard Nixon had his defenders.) Was it just about Iraq? How would Tone be viewed now if he had told Dubya to take a leap all those years ago?
We are all used to politicians being lying bastards, it is their function. But for the PM of this country to lie to the HoC and the country about intelligence to persuade us to go to war was unforgivable. He should have gone to jail.
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
Tone is a strange case. Maggie was always loathed/loved in equal measure. But to go, as Tone did, from being universally adored to a political pariah in a few years is surely unprecedented. (Even Richard Nixon had his defenders.) Was it just about Iraq? How would Tone be viewed now if he had told Dubya to take a leap all those years ago?
Would Dubya have gone ahead?
Almost certainly yes: the NeoCons were convinced they could alter the course of human history towards goodness and light. It was a seductive potion many sipped.
Sort of like pro-Europeans view of Europe as a force for good.
Just listening to Tony Blair on Radio 4. Don't we miss him. So articulate. So persuasive.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
Tone is a strange case. Maggie was always loathed/loved in equal measure. But to go, as Tone did, from being universally adored to a political pariah in a few years is surely unprecedented. (Even Richard Nixon had his defenders.) Was it just about Iraq? How would Tone be viewed now if he had told Dubya to take a leap all those years ago?
Would Dubya have gone ahead?
Yes -- Bush even offered Blair the chance to avoid British involvement because America would go ahead anyway. All Blair did was spend millions of pounds firing missiles at targets chosen by the Pentagon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3641615.stm
Comments
PWC came out today and said they don't believe the first quarter growth numbers as they are not consistent with indicators elsewhere in the economy
Carney's problem is he's turning in to the boy who cried wolf
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/998867148071202816
Who will stand up for Stoke?
1) Turkey is not joining the EU. It was not joining the EU in 2016. It is not joining the EU now. If it ever joins the EU, it will look radically different from how it looked in 2016 and how it looks now.
2) To suggest, therefore, that Turkey is joining the EU was a lie.
3) Why was this statement made? The poster makes it clear with its inclusion of "(population 76 million)". What is the relevance of this statement? The idea that untold numbers of Turks were imminently descending on Britain. This was visually reinforced by little footsteps marching.
4) This was as noted above untrue. But even if it hadn't been, the purpose of this (untrue) statement was to raise fears in the minds of ordinary Britons that hordes of Turks were coming. This was fanning xenophobia. There is no other way of interpreting this.
5) So yes, the referendum was won on a xenophobic lie. It now needs to be delivered upon by the rag-tag bunch of no-marks. They are floundering and failing because they are slowly realising what they have signed up to do.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/998477982032424960
PB Remainer: we could have this, this, or this type of Brexit.
PB Leaver: Traitor!
Mr. B, yeah, the multiple contingencies do make them improbable, but the shorter (23/26) one in particular looks like it could be priced a little long. And, as I said, tiny stakes.
PB Leaver: We didn't promise anything
PB Remainer: You won't be disappointed then?
PB Leaver: Traitor!
Shouldn't they have a platform, if only as an antidote to the Farage Broadcasting Corporation...?
If Cameron wanted Britain to stay in the EU, he should have announced that he would veto Turkey’s accession, or legislate for a U.K. referendum on the matter. Fundamentally, our establishment didn’t think the British people deserved a say on this as on so many other topics, unlike the people of France and Austria.
Mr. Glenn, Clarkson is one person with a view, he doesn't host a weekly political programme or edit the political news for ITV. You naughty sausage.
I don't want to refight the referendum campaign. And I have already written a thread header about the concerns I have about the language used in immigration debates (http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/15/to-get-the-tone-right-it-has-to-come-from-the-top/).
So this is a genuine question: do you think that there might be genuine reasons why people might be concerned about large scale immigration from Muslim countries beyond simple xenophobia? Or do you think that any concern about such immigration is wholly unjustified?
Did the EU poster say that Turkey is joining the EU in 2016? No. It simply said that Turkey was joining which is factually accurate, the accession process was underway and it was our own government's policy that Turkey should join.
"We didn't mean it" seems to be your own counter to that. That makes Cameron and others who said Turkey should join and approved of the accession process being underway the liars not people who took him at his word.
https://twitter.com/ReutersBiz/status/998875163176431616
It is not factually accurate to claim I am going to win
You won! Get over it!!
Mr. B, you thought wrong
Then all messages can be approved for broadcast to prevent any seditious messages escaping.
I am sure all right minded people agree with this.
40,000 premature deaths from diesel fumes and nobody says much about it
I'm not really convinced that modern Britain resembles the last days of the Weimar Republic.
Get JRM to STFU first...
http://al-bab.com/blog/2018/05/telling-it-like-it-isnt-john-pilger-and-syria-truthers
Maybe better to tattoo their arms instead?
A Turkey that met all the AC criteria to join the EU, and whose membership was agreed by all the countries of the EU, would be a very different (and IMV better) country. The argument that dangling the carrot of EU membership in front of them is a good way to encourage them to reform in a positive manner - although goodness knows who they'd have got over the hurdle of the vote.
As it happens, Turkey's progress to meeting the AC was so glacial as to be no-existent. But it was in our interests, and the EU's, to try to encourage them to reform along EU (and western) lines. This is broadly what their great hero Ataturk wanted.
Sadly, the positive process has been replaced with a negative one of distrust. Partly as a result, Turkey is regressing and aligning with countries like Russia. I'd argue that is bad for Turks, bad for the EU and bad for us.
Be very careful what you wish for.
I'm afraid this one betrays the dilution of my Manchester heritage. Dinner is the main meal at whatever time, lunch or tea the smaller meal. As a kid I typically had school dinner and sandwiches for tea, so the conflict didn't arise.
people on PB separate matter
why not give it a rest for a while you'll feel better for it
in other news nuns in kidnapping scheme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44198203
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903
I say dinner.
....the public have become more positive about immigration. Far fewer see it as a major political priority and more see it as positive for Britain’s economy and culture. What is more, this shift is seen across the board — it isn’t a case of liberal “Remainers” rallying behind migrants, while migrant sceptic “Leavers” dig in their heels. The positive shift in attitudes seems to be occurring across the political and social spectrum.
....why isn’t this shift more widely known and discussed on the pro-migration, “Remain” side of politics. Here I must resort to anecdote and unrepresentative data a little, but it is my firm impression that politically active “Remainers” and migration liberals tend to believe things have become worse since Brexit......It does seem that the conventional wisdom among this unusually well informed and engaged group is that migration attitudes have hardened since Brexit. Yet the evidence robustly points in the opposite direction
https://medium.com/@robfordmancs/how-have-attitudes-to-immigration-changed-since-brexit-e37881f55530
(There was also the issue of a Turkish referendum on membership once the AC had been met; the result of this referendum cannot be taken for granted either.)
To make it clear:
Turkey applied for membership of the EEC in 1987
Negotiations started in 2005.
In eleven years up to 2006, only 11 of 35 AC chapters had been opened, and only one completed. Negotiations were ongoing.
If you are negotiating a deal, the deal is not agreed. That is the status Turkey was in; they would only be 'joining' after the AC had been met, an internal referendum had been won, and they had been voted in by the other EU member states.
'Boris Johnson has been touring Argentina Chile and Peru. We do less than 6% of the trade with these countries than we do .......with Ireland'
'Lets get this in perspective. We do less trade with Australia Canada New Zealand and India than we do....... with Holland'
'We do less trade with the whole Commonwealth than we do with Germany....'
He believes that another referendum would reverse the result because the issues weren't understood and now we've delved into them the issues can be simply explained.
....and he's completely right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b39v0d#play
(about 8.50AM)
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/lewisham-east-labour-chair-suspended-over-tweets-about-isis-beheading-emily-thornberry-ian-mckenzie_uk_5b03ab16e4b0463cdba5647a?gws
What about Owen Jones who organised his persecution by taking a single tweet out of context (having lost the Lewisham East nomination)? Feels a bit like bringing the Labour Party into disrepute....
Tories 42%
Labour 38%
LDs 9%
https://mobile.twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/998847837801762817
Tories unchanged from GE 2017 but 2% swing from Labour to the LDs on this poll
They're frit, I tell you, FRIT!
I'm so sure England will win the World Cup, I think we should withdraw and not even play the group stage games...
Mind, I also thought having Romania, Bulgaria etc as full members was nearly as daft, and I wasn’t too keen on Poland. As for Greece, a competent auditor would surely have identified the financial position. Sadly, the audit was politically motivated.
At heart the deficit is a very simply concept.
I look forward to you attending your next job interview and, as a candidate, asking for the keys to the executive washroom and for your name on a parking space as you shake their hands at the end.
In fact, Turkey weren't even at the interview stage. They were a pimply 12-year old Geek sending a letter to join NASA, and being told: "Sure, we'd love to consider you, but only when you pass all your exams and meet all these other criteria."
(worst. analogy. ever.)
That of course was BC. Before Cameron.
(I agree that there was a certain amount of latitude given to some candidate members - as you say Greece - and that rather bit the EU on the backside a few years later. It's something I've criticised the EU before, and I daresay will mention it again in the future.)
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/998576731975028742
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3641615.stm