This is in a country where the abortion debate has for many years featured arguments concerning sometimes hypothetical and sometimes real examples involving extreme and especially emotive cases such as raped nuns and victims of under-age and incestuous rape. The debate has not moved on from that stage and it is often argued like that rather than with reference to the much more common experience where a woman who has become pregnant after consensual sex with her boyfriend or husband - and after the failure of contraception rather than its non-use - undergoes the stress and expense of travelling to GB for an abortion, or who has to break the law by using an abortifacient she has ordered online from abroad.
It is not good for the Yes side that they feel they have to complain about how the No side are campaigning - especially when both sides have presented their arguments with reference to especially harrowing cases.
The Yes side, while still ahead in the polls, appear to be on the back foot or even on the run. The remaining TV debates of today and tomorrow look as though they will be interesting. If the narrative between now and Friday continues to be one of "Look what you'll be responsible for if you vote for repeal" from No and "You're not campaigning nicely" from Yes, then No are in with a good chance.
I think Yes will win 2:1.
I think Yes will win but by less than the gay marriage referendum
Gay marriage had 62% in favour. I will be surprised if it is any closer than that. The Catholic Church is nothing like the power it was.
The latest poll has 56% Yes, so indeed closer than that.
There is also a difference between letting a same sex couple who love each other marry and aborting a foetus for any reason up to 12 weeks into a pregnancy
That seems pretty harsh on Corbyn. He has been pretty clear to anyone willing to listen.
I think 'confusion' is the wrong word. It's contradictory inconsistent wrong headed and taken as a whole crap. But that doesn't make it 'confusing' as in not understandable.
It's the LIES bit that puzzles me. A wholehearted remainer would surely welcome the accession of millions of very poor Muslims to The Project as making it even more glorious than it is now.
The merit is not in question.
The LIE was to claim it was happening, when it wasn't, isn't, didn't.
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.
Yet you think they were 'joining', despite all the evidence to the contrary. They were negotiating to join, which is a very different thing.
If they were 'joining', as you think, then what was their date of entry?
There was no date set, they were in the negotiations stage of the joining procedure.
So we are getting somewhere. You see it as a 'joining procedure' meaning, in your mind, that they were joining. That is patently wrong.
If you pass an interview, get an offer, and accept that offer, then you are 'joining' the company. You are not 'joining' it at the interview stage, and Turkey were not even at that point.
It was actually a negotiations process, with an uncertain end result. Saying they were 'joining' implies a certainty. You could say that they wish to join, or that the EU wished them to join (although both of those may or may not be correct); you cannot say they were 'joining'.
Turkey would only be 'joining' once the negotiations are complete and the votes carried out. That never happened, and was very unlikely to.
"Very unlikely to": I just dont believe this and if it's true, the fact that the eu is capable of the cynical dishonesty involved in stringing Turkey along would be about the best possible argument for leaving.
"Meet the man standing to be a Labour party women’s officer
Tomorrow, David will be a candidate for election as an office-holder in his Constituency Labour Party in Basingstoke. He is standing for election as women’s officer, a post that Labour rules say can only be held by a woman. David is standing for that post because he is a woman. On Wednesdays, at least."
EU - "Turkey are joining the EU" Turkey - "We are joining the EU" UK - "We support Turkey joining the EU"
Vote Leave - "Turkey are joining the EU"
Remain - "XENOPHOBIC LIES!"
Well, remainers and Eurocrats need to differentiate their lies from the other side and this is their mode of choice. It’s a therapy thing and unkind to be too harsh about it.
BTW how are you and I able to give a better forecast of the deficit than the Treasury? I think we both said it would be about £40bn. It’s almost like some there have an agenda.
Yes, it is turning into their security blanket.
I was very surprised when the OBR projected that PSNBex would be £45bn in March. They have access to much more data than us plebs and they were still out by £5bn within a month of the data being released.
The issue, IMO, is the poor quality of statistics from the ONS and whoever they have working on the national accounts/GDP. It's pretty clear that Q1 growth was somewhere around 0.3%. I'd be wary of saying it's a politically motivated agenda, however, given that debt keeps getting revised down and GDP up it's becoming difficult to see how it could be anything else.
I would agree with that. Hopefully we will get 0.2 on Friday and up to 0.3 later in the year.
The forecast that the deficit will rise this financial year already looks problematic despite having a harder benchmark to beat. These systemic errors are concerning though. A Chancellor who appreciated he would have another £10bn at the end of this year just might have been braver in pushing through public housing spend and even reversed the mistake on student loans.
EU - "Turkey are joining the EU" Turkey - "We are joining the EU" UK - "We support Turkey joining the EU"
Vote Leave - "Turkey are joining the EU"
Remain - "XENOPHOBIC LIES!"
Firstly, the UK line is very different to the first two: supporting their joining, under the conditions they would have to meet to join, is different from saying 'they are joining'.
Unless you think the EU would totally short-circuit and circumvent the AC, then the first two are just silly soundbites - though I'd love to see direct quotes from turkey and the EU that say that.
For instance, Erdogan's current line appears to be that membership of the EU is a 'strategic goal'. That is hardly saying 'We are joining', and in itself is laughable given the current geopolitical situation and Turkey's backwards progress towards the AC.
I have not mentioned xenophobia during this conversation.
This is in a country where the abortion debate has for many years featured arguments concerning sometimes hypothetical and sometimes real examples involving extreme and especially emotive cases such as raped nuns and victims of under-age and incestuous rape. The debate has not moved on from that stage and it is often argued like that rather than with reference to the much more common experience where a woman who has become pregnant after consensual sex with her boyfriend or husband - and after the failure of contraception rather than its non-use - undergoes the stress and expense of travelling to GB for an abortion, or who has to break the law by using an abortifacient she has ordered online from abroad.
It is not good for the Yes side that they feel they have to complain about how the No side are campaigning - especially when both sides have presented their arguments with reference to especially harrowing cases.
The Yes side, while still ahead in the polls, appear to be on the back foot or even on the run. The remaining TV debates of today and tomorrow look as though they will be interesting. If the narrative between now and Friday continues to be one of "Look what you'll be responsible for if you vote for repeal" from No and "You're not campaigning nicely" from Yes, then No are in with a good chance.
I think Yes will win 2:1.
I think Yes will win but by less than the gay marriage referendum
Gay marriage had 62% in favour. I will be surprised if it is any closer than that. The Catholic Church is nothing like the power it was.
I think whoever wins they will score less than the 55.3% that No achieved in the Scottish indyref.
In Ireland, gay marriage got between 68% and 78%, an average of 73%, in the last seven polls, then 62% on the day. Abortion law repeal has had between 57% and 75%, an average of 65%, over the last 11 polls, including 58% in the latest Ipsos. Yes is unlikely to get two-thirds of the vote.
It's the LIES bit that puzzles me. A wholehearted remainer would surely welcome the accession of millions of very poor Muslims to The Project as making it even more glorious than it is now.
The merit is not in question.
The LIE was to claim it was happening, when it wasn't, isn't, didn't.
But the witless steeple like, e.g., Merkel, verhofstadt and Erdogan thought that it was, is, and did. How you must have laughed at their silly mistake.
First hit in a search for new countries joining the eu:
Joining the EU Albania. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Kosovo* Montenegro. Serbia. Turkey.
Useful guidance on the ordinary meaning of "joining", from the eu website . All this desperate stuff to the contrary is like saying on saturday morning that harry was not marrying meghan because he might be but what if someone piped up with a just impediment?
But anyway the gravamen of the Turkey charge is not that it was false, surely? If we could amend xenophobic liar to xenophobic mischief maker on the standard charge sheet we wouldn't have to keep having this particular argument.
Your link actually calls them “candidate countries” and points out that joining is not a straightforward linear process.
It lists them under "Joining the EU" and your comment about how it points out that joining is not a straightforward linear process rather proves the point that it is a process and not just initiated by the vote to approve membership. In fact the vast, vast majority what comes under "joining the EU" on the EU's own page is precisely what Turkey is/was doing and before the vote to approve membership.
Why are the Brexiteers suddenly talking up immigration?
Sounds like a plot to destabilize Theresa, who only ever saw Brexit as a means of countering immigration. The hard leavers want to reframe the debate as buccaneering global traders (them) vs xenophobic parochial little Englander (Theresa). Of course, this is just a ruse: their real objective is to wreck Theresa's plans for a customs union.
EU - "Turkey are joining the EU" Turkey - "We are joining the EU" UK - "We support Turkey joining the EU"
Vote Leave - "Turkey are joining the EU"
Remain - "XENOPHOBIC LIES!"
It's the LIES bit that puzzles me. A wholehearted remainer would surely welcome the accession of millions of very poor Muslims to The Project as making it even more glorious than it is now. Unless they have something against Muslims...
We've got something against twats.
As has been rehearsed many times on here, Turkey is joining the EU in the same way as Macclesfield Town is winning the Champions League.
The key point is control of immigration based on what the country needs
That's what we have now.
Economic success and immigration go hand in hand. As the country flourishes, so does the headcount.
No we don't, for EU/EEA citizens we have free movement regardless of need and thanks to Blair we did not even get transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU/EEA nations
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.
Yet you think they were 'joining', despite all the evidence to the contrary. They were negotiating to join, which is a very different thing.
If they were 'joining', as you think, then what was their date of entry?
There was no date set, they were in the negotiations stage of the joining procedure.
So we are getting somewhere. You see it as a 'joining procedure' meaning, in your mind, that they were joining. That is patently wrong.
If you pass an interview, get an offer, and accept that offer, then you are 'joining' the company. You are not 'joining' it at the interview stage, and Turkey were not even at that point.
It was actually a negotiations process, with an uncertain end result. Saying they were 'joining' implies a certainty. You could say that they wish to join, or that the EU wished them to join (although both of those may or may not be correct); you cannot say they were 'joining'.
Turkey would only be 'joining' once the negotiations are complete and the votes carried out. That never happened, and was very unlikely to.
You are overly simplifying what is a very complicated issue. It is not a case of simply a case of an interview and then you are in which is why on the EU's own page discussing joining the EU the procedure for joining is the procedure Turkey is in now. It is why under joining the EU Turkey's name is written. It's there in black and white, it even uses the exact words "Joining the EU" and it is in the title of the URL I will give to you: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en#joining_the_eu
EU - "Turkey are joining the EU" Turkey - "We are joining the EU" UK - "We support Turkey joining the EU"
Vote Leave - "Turkey are joining the EU"
Remain - "XENOPHOBIC LIES!"
Well, remainers and Eurocrats need to differentiate their lies from the other side and this is their mode of choice. It’s a therapy thing and unkind to be too harsh about it.
BTW how are you and I able to give a better forecast of the deficit than the Treasury? I think we both said it would be about £40bn. It’s almost like some there have an agenda.
Yes, it is turning into their security blanket.
I was very surprised when the OBR projected that PSNBex would be £45bn in March. They have access to much more data than us plebs and they were still out by £5bn within a month of the data being released.
The issue, IMO, is the poor quality of statistics from the ONS and whoever they have working on the national accounts/GDP. It's pretty clear that Q1 growth was somewhere around 0.3%. I'd be wary of saying it's a politically motivated agenda, however, given that debt keeps getting revised down and GDP up it's becoming difficult to see how it could be anything else.
I would agree with that. Hopefully we will get 0.2 on Friday and up to 0.3 later in the year.
The forecast that the deficit will rise this financial year already looks problematic despite having a harder benchmark to beat. These systemic errors are concerning though. A Chancellor who appreciated he would have another £10bn at the end of this year just might have been braver in pushing through public housing spend and even reversed the mistake on student loans.
I think the government prefers to undershoot and outperform, which sort of explains why the OBR are so conservative. Additionally, with more aggressive figures the calls for ratcheting up spending would grow, even from Conservative voices, and there's a non-negligible chance that we're heading for some kind of downturn or recession so it suits the chancellor to undershoot and bank the gain every year rather than have it spent, then cut.
On the flip side, inaccurate accounting on this scale does need investigation. The ONS have caused the government no small amount of grief with dodgy growth stats. Again, there seems to be a systematic under-reporting of GDP and downwards revision of debt.
Finally, someone needs to tell Philip Hammond that BoE debt isn't real debt, it owes itself money. It shouldn't be counted towards the overall debt figure, on my preferred measure PSNBex-exBoE the debt ratio has started to fall and quite fast too.
Why are the Brexiteers suddenly talking up immigration?
I was never against no immigration, controlled immigration that the country needs was my thinking,I think Michael and Jacob would agree with me on that.
Why do you and many other remainers think on immigration that leavers were for no more immigration ?
EU - "Turkey are joining the EU" Turkey - "We are joining the EU" UK - "We support Turkey joining the EU"
Vote Leave - "Turkey are joining the EU"
Remain - "XENOPHOBIC LIES!"
It's the LIES bit that puzzles me. A wholehearted remainer would surely welcome the accession of millions of very poor Muslims to The Project as making it even more glorious than it is now. Unless they have something against Muslims...
We've got something against twats.
As has been rehearsed many times on here, Turkey is joining the EU in the same way as Macclesfield Town is winning the Champions League.
No Turkey is joining the EU in the same way as Liverpool or Real Madrid are winning the Champions League.
EU - "Turkey are joining the EU" Turkey - "We are joining the EU" UK - "We support Turkey joining the EU"
Vote Leave - "Turkey are joining the EU"
Remain - "XENOPHOBIC LIES!"
It's the LIES bit that puzzles me. A wholehearted remainer would surely welcome the accession of millions of very poor Muslims to The Project as making it even more glorious than it is now. Unless they have something against Muslims...
We've got something against twats.
As has been rehearsed many times on here, Turkey is joining the EU in the same way as Macclesfield Town is winning the Champions League.
That might be true, but the campaign was free to take the statement from the EU/Turkey/UK government at face value and then not having anyone refute that was absolutely stupid. Dave could have easily said "we'll give the people a say on whether Turkey can join" and kicked the issue into the long grass. That he didn't just made them look like they were trying to hide something.
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.
Yet you think they were 'joining', despite all the evidence to the contrary. They were negotiating to join, which is a very different thing.
If they were 'joining', as you think, then what was their date of entry?
There was no date set, they were in the negotiations stage of the joining procedure.
So we are getting somewhere. You see it as a 'joining procedure' meaning, in your mind, that they were joining. That is patently wrong.
If you pass an interview, get an offer, and accept that offer, then you are 'joining' the company. You are not 'joining' it at the interview stage, and Turkey were not even at that point.
It was actually a negotiations process, with an uncertain end result. Saying they were 'joining' implies a certainty. You could say that they wish to join, or that the EU wished them to join (although both of those may or may not be correct); you cannot say they were 'joining'.
Turkey would only be 'joining' once the negotiations are complete and the votes carried out. That never happened, and was very unlikely to.
You are overly simplifying what is a very complicated issue. It is not a case of simply a case of an interview and then you are in which is why on the EU's own page discussing joining the EU the procedure for joining is the procedure Turkey is in now. It is why under joining the EU Turkey's name is written. It's there in black and white, it even uses the exact words "Joining the EU" and it is in the title of the URL I will give to you: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en#joining_the_eu
That page is about more than 'joining' the EU, and Turkey is there as a ... candidate country.
I think the government prefers to undershoot and outperform, which sort of explains why the OBR are so conservative. Additionally, with more aggressive figures the calls for ratcheting up spending would grow, even from Conservative voices, and there's a non-negligible chance that we're heading for some kind of downturn or recession so it suits the chancellor to undershoot and bank the gain every year rather than have it spent, then cut.
On the flip side, inaccurate accounting on this scale does need investigation. The ONS have caused the government no small amount of grief with dodgy growth stats. Again, there seems to be a systematic under-reporting of GDP and downwards revision of debt.
Finally, someone needs to tell Philip Hammond that BoE debt isn't real debt, it owes itself money. It shouldn't be counted towards the overall debt figure, on my preferred measure PSNBex-exBoE the debt ratio has started to fall and quite fast too.
I rather suspect Mr Hammond knows the last paragraph and isn't shouting it from the rooftops because of the same logic of your first paragraph. We need to bank the fall in PSNBex-exBoE as much as we can for as long as we can in preparation for the inevitable next recession.
This is in a country where the abortion debate has for many years featured arguments concerning sometimes hypothetical and sometimes real examples involving extreme and especially emotive cases such as raped nuns and victims of under-age and incestuous rape. The debate has not moved on from that stage and it is often argued like that rather than with reference to the much more common experience where a woman who has become pregnant after consensual sex with her boyfriend or husband - and after the failure of contraception rather than its non-use - undergoes the stress and expense of travelling to GB for an abortion, or who has to break the law by using an abortifacient she has ordered online from abroad.
It is not good for the Yes side that they feel they have to complain about how the No side are campaigning - especially when both sides have presented their arguments with reference to especially harrowing cases.
The Yes side, while still ahead in the polls, appear to be on the back foot or even on the run. The remaining TV debates of today and tomorrow look as though they will be interesting. If the narrative between now and Friday continues to be one of "Look what you'll be responsible for if you vote for repeal" from No and "You're not campaigning nicely" from Yes, then No are in with a good chance.
I think Yes will win 2:1.
I think Yes will win but by less than the gay marriage referendum
Gay marriage had 62% in favour. I will be surprised if it is any closer than that. The Catholic Church is nothing like the power it was.
I think this will be a good deal tighter than gay marriage.
EU - "Turkey are joining the EU" Turkey - "We are joining the EU" UK - "We support Turkey joining the EU"
Vote Leave - "Turkey are joining the EU"
Remain - "XENOPHOBIC LIES!"
It's the LIES bit that puzzles me. A wholehearted remainer would surely welcome the accession of millions of very poor Muslims to The Project as making it even more glorious than it is now. Unless they have something against Muslims...
We've got something against twats.
As has been rehearsed many times on here, Turkey is joining the EU in the same way as Macclesfield Town is winning the Champions League.
That might be true, but the campaign was free to take the statement from the EU/Turkey/UK government at face value and then not having anyone refute that was absolutely stupid. Dave could have easily said "we'll give the people a say on whether Turkey can join" and kicked the issue into the long grass. That he didn't just made them look like they were trying to hide something.
Maybe, maybe not - no one is saying Remain played their A game. But the point that @AlastairMeeks makes time after time is valid. Leave used a nasty, xenophobic campaign to shore up support, they opened Pandora's Box (sans espoir), and validated a view of foreigners that will take years to nullify if ever.
Well, remainers and Eurocrats need to differentiate their lies from the other side and this is their mode of choice. It’s a therapy thing and unkind to be too harsh about it.
BTW how are you and I able to give a better forecast of the deficit than the Treasury? I think we both said it would be about £40bn. It’s almost like some there have an agenda.
Yes, it is turning into their security blanket.
I was very surprised when the OBR projected that PSNBex would be £45bn in March. They have access to much more data than us plebs and they were still out by £5bn within a month of the data being released.
The issue, IMO, is the poor quality of statistics from the ONS and whoever they have working on the national accounts/GDP. It's pretty clear that Q1 growth was somewhere around 0.3%. I'd be wary of saying it's a politically motivated agenda, however, given that debt keeps getting revised down and GDP up it's becoming difficult to see how it could be anything else.
I would agree with that. Hopefully we will get 0.2 on Friday and up to 0.3 later in the year.
The forecast that the deficit will rise this financial year already looks problematic despite having a harder benchmark to beat. These systemic errors are concerning though. A Chancellor who appreciated he would have another £10bn at the end of this year just might have been braver in pushing through public housing spend and even reversed the mistake on student loans.
I think the government prefers to undershoot and outperform, which sort of explains why the OBR are so conservative. Additionally, with more aggressive figures the calls for ratcheting up spending would grow, even from Conservative voices, and there's a non-negligible chance that we're heading for some kind of downturn or recession so it suits the chancellor to undershoot and bank the gain every year rather than have it spent, then cut.
On the flip side, inaccurate accounting on this scale does need investigation. The ONS have caused the government no small amount of grief with dodgy growth stats. Again, there seems to be a systematic under-reporting of GDP and downwards revision of debt.
Finally, someone needs to tell Philip Hammond that BoE debt isn't real debt, it owes itself money. It shouldn't be counted towards the overall debt figure, on my preferred measure PSNBex-exBoE the debt ratio has started to fall and quite fast too.
The last point is really the point being made by the proposed Italian government who want to cancel €250bn of loans from the ECB. Don’t fancy their chances of persuading the Germans of that.
Nottinghamshire surprises me . Anyway it is Breakfast, lunch then tea as per the cricket.
Calling the evening meal “tea” is the sign of a savage.
The first time I was selected as a candidate, I'd never been to Notts before, and had been living abroad. I had a meal in a cafe and noticed that they offered mushy peas. I thought this was an honest confession - didn't realise anyone actually thought it a good thing.
I acclimatised, and now positively prefer them.
I love mushy peas.
I despise mushy peas. I love garden peas, but mushy peas just make my stomach turn. As for curry sauce... bleugh.
Mushy peas with mint sauce and hot pork pie is divine
The classic pie and pea supper - not tea or dinner.
Sorry scott,where does it say no more immigration ? From the poster he might point out we need controlled immigration.
The poster says "the EU has failed us all". How exactly does that relate to the image?
The line at the bottom says we must "take back control of our borders". Logically this only makes sense if "our borders" is taken to mean the borders of the EU, in which case leaving it is a funny way to take back control.
Sorry scott,where does it say no more immigration ? From the poster he might point out we need controlled immigration.
The poster says "the EU has failed us all". How exactly does that relate to the image?
The line at the bottom says we must "take back control of our borders". Logically this only makes sense if "our borders" is taken to mean the borders of the EU, in which case leaving it is a funny way to take back control.
Pretty sure "our borders" refers to the UK's borders. Especially as the bit before mentions leaving the EU.
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2018_(Ireland)
There is also a difference between letting a same sex couple who love each other marry and aborting a foetus for any reason up to 12 weeks into a pregnancy
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/998905519384428544
https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/998909547371679746
Why are the Brexiteers suddenly talking up immigration?
The LIE was to claim it was happening, when it wasn't, isn't, didn't.
Tomorrow, David will be a candidate for election as an office-holder in his Constituency Labour Party in Basingstoke. He is standing for election as women’s officer, a post that Labour rules say can only be held by a woman. David is standing for that post because he is a woman. On Wednesdays, at least."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/meet-the-man-standing-to-be-a-labour-party-womens-officer/
The forecast that the deficit will rise this financial year already looks problematic despite having a harder benchmark to beat. These systemic errors are concerning though. A Chancellor who appreciated he would have another £10bn at the end of this year just might have been braver in pushing through public housing spend and even reversed the mistake on student loans.
Unless you think the EU would totally short-circuit and circumvent the AC, then the first two are just silly soundbites - though I'd love to see direct quotes from turkey and the EU that say that.
For instance, Erdogan's current line appears to be that membership of the EU is a 'strategic goal'. That is hardly saying 'We are joining', and in itself is laughable given the current geopolitical situation and Turkey's backwards progress towards the AC.
I have not mentioned xenophobia during this conversation.
In Ireland, gay marriage got between 68% and 78%, an average of 73%, in the last seven polls, then 62% on the day. Abortion law repeal has had between 57% and 75%, an average of 65%, over the last 11 polls, including 58% in the latest Ipsos. Yes is unlikely to get two-thirds of the vote.
Economic success and immigration go hand in hand. As the country flourishes, so does the headcount.
As has been rehearsed many times on here, Turkey is joining the EU in the same way as Macclesfield Town is winning the Champions League.
On the flip side, inaccurate accounting on this scale does need investigation. The ONS have caused the government no small amount of grief with dodgy growth stats. Again, there seems to be a systematic under-reporting of GDP and downwards revision of debt.
Finally, someone needs to tell Philip Hammond that BoE debt isn't real debt, it owes itself money. It shouldn't be counted towards the overall debt figure, on my preferred measure PSNBex-exBoE the debt ratio has started to fall and quite fast too.
Mr. Jimmy, you know who else made thousand year political predictions...
Why do you and many other remainers think on immigration that leavers were for no more immigration ?
I think Repeal are going to lose. The BBC and Guardian will have a meltdown.
The line at the bottom says we must "take back control of our borders". Logically this only makes sense if "our borders" is taken to mean the borders of the EU, in which case leaving it is a funny way to take back control.
How much "more" beyond "breaking" is it an advert for?
The opposite of 'uncontrolled' is 'controlled', not 'none'.
You're welcome.