A responsible Prime Minister and Government would now announce that they have discussed the possible terms of Leaving exhaustively with the EU, have explored every possible avenue and have ‘gamed’ every possible situation post-Leaving. They have however come to the conclusion that to actually Leave the EU would create a situation in which the vast majority of the Britsh public would be economically worse off, meaning that funds for desirable activities such as Education and the NHS would have to be reduced. Since as MP’s they are duty bound to give their best assessment of the situation and vote accordingly, they are withdrawing the Article 50 letter.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
We might not have a choice. A short period of unilateral free trade, as I have proposed before, might allow us to get through a no deal period now but obviously due to the lack of preparation it will be disruptive. It is the price we will have to pay for the remainers refusing to allow the country to prepare for the blindingly obvious possible outcome.
I think the mistake made in the thread header is to take the argument for a general election at face value. I think it is very unlikely that the Conservative MP genuinely believes that a new leader, a general election and an unlikely majority will suddenly ensure that the EU instantly roll over to have their tummy tickled by the hard Brexiteers.
The objective is to construct a superficial narrative to establish the idea that there was an obvious alternative to whatever reality the government is forced to inhabit. When the contradictions of the Brexit campaign collapse when they encounter reality it is vital that there are many superficial alternatives to blame for that collapse. This is one of them.
In many respects the political debate in the UK since the referendum has been a process of trying to create a narrative of blame for when Brexit inevitably fails to live up to its fantastical campaign promises. There is very little debate about the real trade offs that exist between different priorities.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
As I said to an earlier poster with similar views there is not a shred of electoral or polling evidence to back up your wishful thoughts. At best a GE would produce a similar result.
Actually yes there is.
In the recent polling by YouGov the following results occurred.
Party:
Conservative ……. 42% Labour ……………. 38%
Who would be best Prime Minister
Theresa May ………… 37% Don't Know ………….. 35% Jeremy Corbyn ………. 27%
Look at the evidence of who would be best Prime Minister and the whopping 35% are 'Don't Knows'. It is these voters who are actually after 'swing voters', they are the ones who are looking for a Prime Minister who they think would be better than Corbyn.
Now look at the figures for EU tracker polls (taking into account that presently the publicity has been overwhelmingly anti-Brexit by Remoaners and the EU treating a weak PM as you would expect):
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?'
Right ……….. 43% Wrong ……… 44% Don't Know …… 13%
So given that 'Wrong' only have a 1% lead and considering the vast majority of publicity for months on end has been Remoaner based it is amazing that this is such a small lead, this can easily be interpreted that with the right leader in place the electorate will still back 'Leave'.
You see when examining the polling evidence it has to be put into context. Even the Local Election results were better for Conservatives and worse for Labour than most polls showed, but this was not a success for the Conservatives led by May but rather May didn't take part and the LEAVE support went overwhelmingly to the Conservatives.
There is much evidence if you just care to look at it without bias.
The country wants a new leader, the Conservative Party wants May to stand down before the next General ELection (see ConservativeHome for evidence of that). Out of the top 5 candidates supported by members 4 are Brexiters and the 5th is a Brexit supporter who voted and campaigned Remain and now says he is a Brexit supporter again.
The traditional way for the Commons to express no confidence in a minister is to vote to cut their salary. That was the form of the motion against Patricia Hewitt, for example, in 2007, which was defeated. If the Commons were to express no confidence in the prime minister, she would have to leave office. That is unlikely to be the route taken, for reasons that include the openness of Commons divisions, but it exists.
Mr. G, very difficult to compare drivers across eras. The machinery has changed drastically.
Very much so. It’s much more of a team sport now than it used to be, the top three teams employ something like 4,000 people between them - a far cry from when a dozen people in a shed used to be able to field a car or two.
What is interesting in this speech is the often ignored issue of the jurisdiction of the withdrawal agreement. The UK wants it governed by a joint panel (as with all international treaties); the EU insists on the ECJ. Not sure how May fudges this one - ECJ jurisdiction would be absolutely ridiculous. Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
He's suggesting it only for a transition period (8 years) - can see Tories feeling oh well, we'll get out in the end.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
As you have said before, the correct approach to the negotiations would have been to start from the premise of WTO terms and worked forwards from there - as opposed to starting from the status quo membership of EU institutions and working backwards.
I think the mistake made in the thread header is to take the argument for a general election at face value. I think it is very unlikely that the Conservative MP genuinely believes that a new leader, a general election and an unlikely majority will suddenly ensure that the EU instantly roll over to have their tummy tickled by the hard Brexiteers.
The objective is to construct a superficial narrative to establish the idea that there was an obvious alternative to whatever reality the government is forced to inhabit. When the contradictions of the Brexit campaign collapse when they encounter reality it is vital that there are many superficial alternatives to blame for that collapse. This is one of them.
In many respects the political debate in the UK since the referendum has been a process of trying to create a narrative of blame for when Brexit inevitably fails to live up to its fantastical campaign promises. There is very little debate about the real trade offs that exist between different priorities.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I don't agree with David Herdson's conclusion for the following reasons:
1. May is not following a policy of soft Brexit. She is promising hard Brexit but simply leading the nation to humiliation because she is utterly incompetent - less PM than flotsam being swept with the tide. 2. Corbyn is only credible because he is facing May. Before May revealed her 'true self' to the electorate, her vision of hard Brexit and Tory competency had the Tories miles ahead. 3. The reason the polls are tied is because many Tory voters don't want to vote Corbyn and UKIP don't really exist, so choose to believe that May will deliver the Brexit she promised, and Corbyn does not have the support to win an election. 4. The only way Corbyn could ever win an election is if May pisses off the Tories over Brexit so much that they vote for him out of spite - and this is the one scenario which is unfolding. Leavers see Corbyn as temporary but the failure to really leave would be permanent. 5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. We are not looking at a suboptimal soft Brexit. The EU are going for all out humiliation - because May is weak and since she ruled out 'no deal', she is defenceless. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming.
In terms of what I think will happen:
1. The EU will terminate talks with the UK, probably in June, until the UK completely surrender on the backstop. May won't even give us the pleasure of walking away ourselves. 2. This will prompt an orgy of concessions from May. She has chosen not to prepare for all the eventualities because she is a fool. The Tories will move to bring her down. No choice. The Tories remember the ERM - you can't have a national humiliation and win. 3. In this case, whoever wields the knife WILL win the crown. 4. A strong Tory leaver in open conflict with the EU vs Corbyn will see the Tories ahead by some distance. Election timing to be determined but probably next year.
Fair play for setting out your predictions, but I'd happily bet against 1, 3 and 4 and probably 2 as well.
I think the mistake made in the thread header is to take the argument for a general election at face value. I think it is very unlikely that the Conservative MP genuinely believes that a new leader, a general election and an unlikely majority will suddenly ensure that the EU instantly roll over to have their tummy tickled by the hard Brexiteers.
The objective is to construct a superficial narrative to establish the idea that there was an obvious alternative to whatever reality the government is forced to inhabit. When the contradictions of the Brexit campaign collapse when they encounter reality it is vital that there are many superficial alternatives to blame for that collapse. This is one of them.
In many respects the political debate in the UK since the referendum has been a process of trying to create a narrative of blame for when Brexit inevitably fails to live up to its fantastical campaign promises. There is very little debate about the real trade offs that exist between different priorities.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
Mr. G, very difficult to compare drivers across eras. The machinery has changed drastically.
Very much so. It’s much more of a team sport now than it used to be, the top three teams employ something like 4,000 people between them - a far cry from when a dozen people in a shed used to be able to field a car or two.
Like most sport now it is down to who has the most cash, hence why most sports nowadays are boring compared to what we had years ago, little competition now and the same few rich winners every time.
As I said to an earlier poster with similar views there is not a shred of electoral or polling evidence to back up your wishful thoughts. At best a GE would produce a similar result.
Actually yes there is.
In the recent polling by YouGov the following results occurred.
Party:
Conservative ……. 42% Labour ……………. 38%
Who would be best Prime Minister
Theresa May ………… 37% Don't Know ………….. 35% Jeremy Corbyn ………. 27%
Look at the evidence of who would be best Prime Minister and the whopping 35% are 'Don't Knows'. It is these voters who are actually after 'swing voters', they are the ones who are looking for a Prime Minister who they think would be better than Corbyn.
Now look at the figures for EU tracker polls (taking into account that presently the publicity has been overwhelmingly anti-Brexit by Remoaners and the EU treating a weak PM as you would expect):
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?'
Right ……….. 43% Wrong ……… 44% Don't Know …… 13%
So given that 'Wrong' only have a 1% lead and considering the vast majority of publicity for months on end has been Remoaner based it is amazing that this is such a small lead, this can easily be interpreted that with the right leader in place the electorate will still back 'Leave'.
You see when examining the polling evidence it has to be put into context. Even the Local Election results were better for Conservatives and worse for Labour than most polls showed, but this was not a success for the Conservatives led by May but rather May didn't take part and the LEAVE support went overwhelmingly to the Conservatives.
There is much evidence if you just care to look at it without bias.
The country wants a new leader, the Conservative Party wants May to stand down before the next General ELection (see ConservativeHome for evidence of that). Out of the top 5 candidates supported by members 4 are Brexiters and the 5th is a Brexit supporter who voted and campaigned Remain and now says he is a Brexit supporter again.
However, May is popular with current Conservative voters, almost certainly more popular than any rival.
The traditional way for the Commons to express no confidence in a minister is to vote to cut their salary. That was the form of the motion against Patricia Hewitt, for example, in 2007, which was defeated. If the Commons were to express no confidence in the prime minister, she would have to leave office. That is unlikely to be the route taken, for reasons that include the openness of Commons divisions, but it exists.
As opposed to Gordon Brown, who unilaterally decided to cut the PM’s salary from £195k to £150k effective April 2010 - a month before he left office.
Sorry in my post below the first two lines were supposed to be a quote from another poster on here, unfortunately I have just realised those lines did not appear as a quotation.
My reply therefore is:
In the recent polling by YouGov the following results occurred.
Party:
Conservative ……. 42% Labour ……………. 38%
Who would be best Prime Minister
Theresa May ………… 37% Don't Know ………….. 35% Jeremy Corbyn ………. 27%
Look at the evidence of who would be best Prime Minister and the whopping 35% are 'Don't Knows'. It is these voters who are actually after 'swing voters', they are the ones who are looking for a Prime Minister who they think would be better than Corbyn.
Now look at the figures for EU tracker polls (taking into account that presently the publicity has been overwhelmingly anti-Brexit by Remoaners and the EU treating a weak PM as you would expect):
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?'
Right ……….. 43% Wrong ……… 44% Don't Know …… 13%
So given that 'Wrong' only have a 1% lead and considering the vast majority of publicity for months on end has been Remoaner based it is amazing that this is such a small lead, this can easily be interpreted that with the right leader in place the electorate will still back 'Leave'.
You see when examining the polling evidence it has to be put into context. Even the Local Election results were better for Conservatives and worse for Labour than most polls showed, but this was not a success for the Conservatives led by May but rather May didn't take part and the LEAVE support went overwhelmingly to the Conservatives.
There is much evidence if you just care to look at it without bias.
The country wants a new leader, the Conservative Party wants May to stand down before the next General ELection (see ConservativeHome for evidence of that). Out of the top 5 candidates supported by members 4 are Brexiters and the 5th is a Brexit supporter who voted and campaigned Remain and now says he is a Brexit supporter again.
I think the mistake made in the thread header is to take the argument for a general election at face value. I think it is very unlikely that the Conservative MP genuinely believes that a new leader, a general election and an unlikely majority will suddenly ensure that the EU instantly roll over to have their tummy tickled by the hard Brexiteers.
The objective is to construct a superficial narrative to establish the idea that there was an obvious alternative to whatever reality the government is forced to inhabit. When the contradictions of the Brexit campaign collapse when they encounter reality it is vital that there are many superficial alternatives to blame for that collapse. This is one of them.
In many respects the political debate in the UK since the referendum has been a process of trying to create a narrative of blame for when Brexit inevitably fails to live up to its fantastical campaign promises. There is very little debate about the real trade offs that exist between different priorities.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
As for thwarting, I'm afraid I can't find the chaps name (he appeared on the Sky programme The Pledge, if that helps anyone, and I think is a Lib Dem peer) overtly called in the Lords for our departure to be averted.
Anyway, off to watch practice.
Lord German was actually born on 8 May 1945 - Victory in Europe day! Useless fact of the day!
As for thwarting, I'm afraid I can't find the chaps name (he appeared on the Sky programme The Pledge, if that helps anyone, and I think is a Lib Dem peer) overtly called in the Lords for our departure to be averted.
Anyway, off to watch practice.
Lord German was actually born on 8 May 1945 - Victory in Europe day! Useless fact of the day!
I suspect that few would argue that staying in the common market and customs union is leaving the EU. And in that case, there's no way the EU could allow us to evade FOM - it would be political suicide to give us that degree of special treatment. Yet many politicians are seriously arguing that.
I can understand an opposition to Brexit arguing for that but it's not even a cunning plan.
Pretending you're leaving when you're not seems to be a backstop, even though it's transparent nonsense. It's what they're reduced to now they realise a second referendum would be political suicide.
Better to go with Mr Meeks' cunning plan … try Brexit and see the result
So long as we leave the single market then we can end FOM, regardless of whether we stay in the customs union.
Plus far from 'special treatment' the UK has had a more lax approach to FOM than most EU nations thanks to Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as most other EU nations did up to 2011
You KEEP ignoring the fact that being in the CU is basically the same as being in the SM. There is a reason that Brussels keep rejecting May's backstop of CU extension for the whole UK - they keep saying it can only apply to NI. Why? Because extended CU membership for the UK would in effect allow the UK to remain in the SM and this violates the EU line against cherry picking - they will insist on FOM. You need to read what the EU are clearly saying. Long term CU membership for the UK is not an option.
Wrong, EU rules are quite clear only the Single Market requires free movement not a Customs Union and let alone the customs partnership May is proposing. Those rules cannot be changed on a whim. Even allowing for some alignment with some Single Market rules and regulations will not change that. The Single Market, an internal market is also not the same as the Customs Union which basically just involves a common external tariff.
Not forgetting of course we are owed more controls on FOM anyway given Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
No, but leaving one’s country on a permanent basis with no plans to return is not exactly evidence of patriotism.
It’s a bit liking marrying someone, moving out, and then telling them nothing has changed.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing hard Brexit sympathiser who lives in Australia and for whom Brexit will have virtually no personal impact either way
As for thwarting, I'm afraid I can't find the chaps name (he appeared on the Sky programme The Pledge, if that helps anyone, and I think is a Lib Dem peer) overtly called in the Lords for our departure to be averted.
Anyway, off to watch practice.
Lord German was actually born on 8 May 1945 - Victory in Europe day! Useless fact of the day!
Lord German is well known to us in Wales, as a particularly useless Deputy First Minister.
And ... oh dear ... how often it happens with these passionate Europhiles, there was that unfortunate little incident when he overclaimed his European expenses.
Of course, many us might wonder what the European Unit of the Welsh Joint Education committee actually does.
Mike German was a former leader of the Welsh LibDems. His successful stewardship of that group can be judged by the fact that -- even under a PR system -- they have been reduced to one seat and fifth party status.
So long as we leave the single market then we can end FOM, regardless of whether we stay in the customs union.
Plus far from 'special treatment' the UK has had a more lax approach to FOM than most EU nations thanks to Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as most other EU nations did up to 2011
You KEEP ignoring the fact that being in the CU is basically the same as being in the SM. There is a reason that Brussels keep rejecting May's backstop of CU extension for the whole UK - they keep saying it can only apply to NI. Why? Because extended CU membership for the UK would in effect allow the UK to remain in the SM and this violates the EU line against cherry picking - they will insist on FOM. You need to read what the EU are clearly saying. Long term CU membership for the UK is not an option.
Wrong, EU rules are quite clear only the Single Market requires free movement not a Customs Union and let alone the customs partnership May is proposing. Those rules cannot be changed on a whim.
Not forgetting of course we are owed more controls on FOM anyway given Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations.
You were talking about the customs union, not the customs partnership (which the EU has already rejected). Don't change the terms of the discussion because you are losing.
Here is some reality for you:
A senior EU official has issued a blunt warning to the UK that it cannot solve the Irish border issue by making the so-called backstop guarantee on avoiding a hard border a UK-wide solution....
There was also a sharp warning that the Irish solution must involve full alignment of EU rules on goods, standards and regulations for Northern Ireland in order to avoid a hard border, and not just alignment on customs.....
The senior official said: "What we need to have is the recognition that the backstop has to be Northern Ireland specific.
"We have to do away with the fantasy that there is an all-UK solution to that."
[A] EU source, who said: "Let me make it very clear. The regulatory alignment option is not available on an all-UK basis because it would amount to selective participation in the single market..."
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
I think the farther one is from one’s own country the greater the patriotic fervour. Those of us who have chosen to live here are far more relaxed about things because we understand the difference between the theory and the practice.
When you are so far away it’s easy to get things out of proportion.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing hard Brexit sympathiser who lives in Australia and for whom Brexit will have virtually no personal impact either way
Well, we have established that you cannot see very well at all. I think Pauline Hanson is an idiot.
Most elitist remainers had no personal impact from the consequences of their support of the EU - they don't live in areas dominated by immigrants, their jobs are not the ones at risk from uncontrolled immigration. Are they entitled to an opinion?
Politics and principle are not dependent on self-interest. Perhaps a failure to understand that is why your Tory party has lost its way.
I do like this comment, which I think applies more widely than Ireland:
MEP Luke Ming Flanagan, a former TD for the [Roscannon] constituency said he always knew voters would come out in favour of repeal: “I always knew voters were not conservative – they are just a bit complicated.”
Actually a significant proportion of the EU migrants ARE in the Greater London are, AIUI. Basically that’s because where many of the jobs are, although there are of course pockets in places like South :Lincolnshire, where there are a lot of short-term agricultural jobs. And where, incidentally, farmers are beginnimng to grumble (what’s new) about the shortage of labour.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Off topic , does TSB have a major data breach ? As there seems to be reports of fraud , with money been taken from accounts , with people saying they have no idea , how their account was accessed.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
The Leavers, although I’m not sure if that’s your point!
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
Leavers. It was the government who were mandated to leave.
So long as we leave the single market then we can end FOM, regardless of whether we stay in the customs union.
Plus far from 'special treatment' the UK has had a more lax approach to FOM than most EU nations thanks to Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as most other EU nations did up to 2011
You KEEP ignoring the fact that being in the CU is basically the same as being in the SM. There is a reason that Brussels keep rejecting May's backstop of CU extension for the whole UK - they keep saying it can only apply to NI. Why? Because extended CU membership for the UK would in effect allow the UK to remain in the SM and this violates the EU line against cherry picking - they will insist on FOM. You need to read what the EU are clearly saying. Long term CU membership for the UK is not an option.
Wrong, EU rules are quite clear only the Single Market requires free movement not a Customs Union and let alone the customs partnership May is proposing. Those rules cannot be changed on a whim.
Not forgetting of course we are owed more controls on FOM anyway given Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations.
You were talking about the customs union, not the customs partnership (which the EU has already rejected). Don't change the terms of the discussion because you are losing.
Here is some reality for you:
A senior EU official has issued a blunt warning to the UK that it cannot solve the Irish border issue by making the so-called backstop guarantee on avoiding a hard border a UK-wide solution....
There was also a sharp warning that the Irish solution must involve full alignment of EU rules on goods, standards and regulations for Northern Ireland in order to avoid a hard border, and not just alignment on customs.....
The senior official said: "What we need to have is the recognition that the backstop has to be Northern Ireland specific.
"We have to do away with the fantasy that there is an all-UK solution to that."
[A] EU source, who said: "Let me make it very clear. The regulatory alignment option is not available on an all-UK basis because it would amount to selective participation in the single market..."
My emphasis.
Since when did alignment on 'goods, standards and regulations' between NI and Ireland involve unfettered freedom of movement from the EU to the UK? Answer: Never
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
Who was it who said that making a detailed plan before invoking Article 50 was a wrecking tactic?
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
Leavers. It was the government who were mandated to leave.
May - Remainer Hammond - Remainer Rudd - Remainer Civil Service - Remainers
Who was it that argued endlessly on here that we had to reject the idea that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'? Yes, that was the Remainers as well.
I may live in Australia, but that just means I get things upside down, not back to front.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing hard Brexit sympathiser who lives in Australia and for whom Brexit will have virtually no personal impact either way
Well, we have established that you cannot see very well at all. I think Pauline Hanson is an idiot.
Most elitist remainers had no personal impact from the consequences of their support of the EU - they don't live in areas dominated by immigrants, their jobs are not the ones at risk from uncontrolled immigration. Are they entitled to an opinion?
Politics and principle are not dependent on self-interest. Perhaps a failure to understand that is why your Tory party has lost its way.
Clearly not when everything you spout comes from the Pauline Hanson handbook with a touch of Tony Abbott on the side. Plus as I have made clear I support replacing FOM with work permits
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
Leavers. It was the government who were mandated to leave.
May - Remainer Hammond - Remainer Rudd - Remainer Civil Service - Remainers
Who was it that argued endlessly on here that we had to reject the idea that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'? Yes, that was the Remainers as well.
I may live in Australia, but that just means I get things upside down, not back to front.
Doesn’t matter what they thought before. They were the Leaving Government. Tasked with Leaving.
The only mitigating factor being that they might not want to trash the country as they do it. Your country.
You KEEP ignoring the fact that being in the CU is basically the same as being in the SM. There is a reason that Brussels keep rejecting May's backstop of CU extension for the whole UK - they keep saying it can only apply to NI. Why? Because extended CU membership for the UK would in effect allow the UK to remain in the SM and this violates the EU line against cherry picking - they will insist on FOM. You need to read what the EU are clearly saying. Long term CU membership for the UK is not an option.
Wrong, EU rules are quite clear only the Single Market requires free movement not a Customs Union and let alone the customs partnership May is proposing. Those rules cannot be changed on a whim.
Not forgetting of course we are owed more controls on FOM anyway given Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations.
You were talking about the customs union, not the customs partnership (which the EU has already rejected). Don't change the terms of the discussion because you are losing.
Here is some reality for you:
A senior EU official has issued a blunt warning to the UK that it cannot solve the Irish border issue by making the so-called backstop guarantee on avoiding a hard border a UK-wide solution....
There was also a sharp warning that the Irish solution must involve full alignment of EU rules on goods, standards and regulations for Northern Ireland in order to avoid a hard border, and not just alignment on customs.....
The senior official said: "What we need to have is the recognition that the backstop has to be Northern Ireland specific.
"We have to do away with the fantasy that there is an all-UK solution to that."
[A] EU source, who said: "Let me make it very clear. The regulatory alignment option is not available on an all-UK basis because it would amount to selective participation in the single market..."
My emphasis.
Since when did alignment on 'goods, standards and regulations' between NI and Ireland involve unfettered freedom of movement from the EU to the UK? Answer: Never
Let's try again. YOUR leader has ruled out the backstop applying in NI only. Her backstop (CU membership) is for the WHOLE UK. So:
However, this was flatly dismissed by the senior EU source, who said: "Let me make it very clear. The regulatory alignment option is not available on an all-UK basis because it would amount to selective participation in the single market...."
Essentially the EU is arguing that for the UK to try to avail of the backstop on a UK-wide basis would amount to cherry picking.
Exactly which cherry do you think they are talking about?
A General Election this year now looks extremely unlikely. A Prime Minister can't simply just call one, it requires votes in Parliament now, either two thirds of members have to approve of one, as they did last year or there has to be two separate votes of no confidence in the government. The House of Commons is closed for the half term break and meets again on 4th of June, there are 20 sitting days in June and another 18 in July, after that the house is in recess until September when there are just 7 sitting days scheduled. An early General Election would have to be just about the first item on the agenda either in early June or September to get it scheduled on the 5th or 12th of July or on the 4th, 11th, 18th or 25th of October. Any other dates would encroach on either the Summer holiday season or would be after the clocks go back on the 28th of October. Of course Parliament could be recalled to sit on days in the Summer when it's not scheduled to be sitting and there's no law to say that polling day can't be in August or in the Winter or that polling day has to be on a Thursday. I consider the October scenario a slight possibility but it would have to be well flagged up in advance because it would result in the cancelation of the party conference season. Any other date would be deeply unpopular and impractical and if I could afford to tie up money for six months I would lay any price up to 100/1 against a General Election in 2018.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
Leavers. It was the government who were mandated to leave.
May - Remainer Hammond - Remainer Rudd - Remainer Civil Service - Remainers
Who was it that argued endlessly on here that we had to reject the idea that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'? Yes, that was the Remainers as well.
I may live in Australia, but that just means I get things upside down, not back to front.
Nice last line
I am with you in spirit, but I just don’t see how we can get to a hard Brexit from where we are today without 1) chaos on 29/03/19, which will in due course be sorted, but leading on to 2) Corbyn winning power on the back of anger about 1).
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
Leavers. It was the government who were mandated to leave.
May - Remainer Hammond - Remainer Rudd - Remainer Civil Service - Remainers
Who was it that argued endlessly on here that we had to reject the idea that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'? Yes, that was the Remainers as well.
I may live in Australia, but that just means I get things upside down, not back to front.
During the Referendum ‘debates’ it was quite clear that Leavers believed that all we had to do was ‘Leave' and everything would be ‘all right’. People pointing out that that wasn’t the case were derided as ‘experts. And we’ve had enough of experts”.
I was born just before WWII and grew up in austerity and hard times, which didn’t really ameliorate until the late 50’s or early 60’s. I fear I’m going to die in similarly austere times and it will take those of my grandchildren who are still in the country to put it right.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
Leavers. It was the government who were mandated to leave.
May - Remainer Hammond - Remainer Rudd - Remainer Civil Service - Remainers
Who was it that argued endlessly on here that we had to reject the idea that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'? Yes, that was the Remainers as well.
I may live in Australia, but that just means I get things upside down, not back to front.
During the Referendum ‘debates’ it was quite clear that Leavers believed that all we had to do was ‘Leave' and everything would be ‘all right’. People pointing out that that wasn’t the case were derided as ‘experts. And we’ve had enough of experts”.
I was born just before WWII and grew up in austerity and hard times, which didn’t really ameliorate until the late 50’s or early 60’s. I fear I’m going to die in similarly austere times and it will take those of my grandchildren who are still in the country to put it right.
The one thing that will set this county back decades is a Labour Government in which John McDonnell plays a leading role.
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing hard Brexit sympathiser who lives in Australia and for whom Brexit will have virtually no personal impact either way
Well, we have established that you cannot see very well at all. I think Pauline Hanson is an idiot.
Most elitist remainers had no personal impact from the consequences of their support of the EU - they don't live in areas dominated by immigrants, their jobs are not the ones at risk from uncontrolled immigration. Are they entitled to an opinion?
Politics and principle are not dependent on self-interest. Perhaps a failure to understand that is why your Tory party has lost its way.
Clearly not when everything you spout comes from the Pauline Hanson handbook with a touch of Tony Abbott on the side. Plus as I have made clear I support replacing FOM with work permits
I think Tony Abbott is an idiot as well. I have no interest in Christian conservatism. I am a Thatcherite conservative - shame the Tory party does not represent this any longer.
You have made it clear that you support replacing FOM with FOM-but-called-something-different. Work permits are ONLY of use if the exact number and criteria of work permits is being decided unilaterally by the UK government. That is not what your leader is talking about. She is talking about a system where anyone from the EU will be able to get a 'work permit' if they are offered a job, and that commitment will be in a trade agreement with the EU such that the UK government will not be able to change it.
If the full rights of numbers, criteria and decision to issue work permits residing with the UK Government exclusively is your red line, say so. Then I can save the thread and show it to you later when May sells you out.
Mr. Sandpit, I may have been modestly sarcastic (I did mention a few days ago the fact to which you referred, and his particularly bad record of crashing at Monaco).
Liberty would definitely agree with you about the important US market. Take it you've heard the Miami news?
Markets aren't up yet. Got to have something to eat fairly shortly, so if they don't get their skates on there won't be a tip.
You KEEP ignoring the fact that being in the CU is basically the same as being in on.
Wrong, EU rules are quite clear only the Single Market requires free movement not a Customs Union and let alone the customs partnership May is proposing. Those rules cannot be changed on a whim.
Not forgetting of course we are owed more controls on FOM anyway given Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations.
You were talking about the customs union, not the customs partnership (which the EU has already rejected). Don't change the terms of the discussion because you are losing.
Here is some reality for you:
A senior EU official has issued a blunt warning to the UK that it cannot solve the Irish border issue by making the so-called backstop guarantee on avoiding a hard border a UK-wide solution....
There was also a sharp warning that the Irish solution must involve full alignment of EU rules on goods, standards and regulations for Northern Ireland in order to avoid a hard border, and not just alignment on customs.....
The senior official said: "What we need to have is the recognition that the backstop has to be Northern Ireland specific.
"We have to do away with the fantasy that there is an all-UK solution to that."
[A] EU source, who said: "Let me make it very clear. The regulatory alignment option is not available on an all-UK basis because it would amount to selective participation in the single market..."
My emphasis.
Since when did alignment on 'goods, standards and regulations' between NI and Ireland involve unfettered freedom of movement from the EU to the UK? Answer: Never
Let's try again. YOUR leader has king.
Exactly which cherry do you think they are talking about?
No let's try again with YOU. It may have passed you by but there was an agreement between May and Barnier, the UK and the EU in December that there would be regulatory alignment and a form of customs partnership between the whole of the UK, not just NI and the EU. Without that agreement stage 1 of the talks would not have completed and the move to FTA talks would not have begun. The fact some faceless minor EU backroom functionary is trying to shit stir to a newspaper does not change that.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
Leavers. It was the government who were mandated to leave.
May - Remainer Hammond - Remainer Rudd - Remainer Civil Service - Remainers
Who was it that argued endlessly on here that we had to reject the idea that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'? Yes, that was the Remainers as well.
I may live in Australia, but that just means I get things upside down, not back to front.
During the Referendum ‘debates’ it was quite clear that Leavers believed that all we had to do was ‘Leave' and everything would be ‘all right’. People pointing out that that wasn’t the case were derided as ‘experts. And we’ve had enough of experts”.
I was born just before WWII and grew up in austerity and hard times, which didn’t really ameliorate until the late 50’s or early 60’s. I fear I’m going to die in similarly austere times and it will take those of my grandchildren who are still in the country to put it right.
The one thing that will set this county back decades is a Labour Government in which John McDonnell plays a leading role.
It was a Labour Govt after the War which laid the foundations of recovery, but that’s not the issue. What will bring Labour into power is queues of lorries on the M20 (etc)!
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing l impact either way
Well, we have established that you cannot see very well at all. I think ts way.
Clearly not when everything you spout comes from thts
I think Tony Abbott is an idiot as well. I have no interest in Christian conservatism. I am a Thatcherite conservative - shame the Tory party does not represent this any longer.
You have made it clear that you support replacing FOM with FOM-but-called-something-different. Work permits are ONLY of use if the exact number and criteria of work permits is being decided unilaterally by the UK government. That is not what your leader is talking about. She is talking about a system where anyone from the EU will be able to get a 'work permit' if they are offered a job, and that commitment will be in a trade agreement with the EU such that the UK government will not be able to change it.
If the full rights of numbers, criteria and decision to issue work permits residing with the UK Government exclusively is your red line, say so. Then I can save the thread and show it to you later when May sells you out.
Tony Abbott is a Thatcherite conservative plus so you have just affirmed everything I said. Though of course Thatcher took the UK into the single market and backed membership of the EEC so she was certainly no hard Brexiteer as PM.
Even work permits with a job offer are fine by me, at the moment anyone from the EU can come to the UK job offer or not for at least 3 months
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
Leavers. It was the government who were mandated to leave.
May - Remainer Hammond - Remainer Rudd - Remainer Civil Service - Remainers
Who was it that argued endlessly on here that we had to reject the idea that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'? Yes, that was the Remainers as well.
I may live in Australia, but that just means I get things upside down, not back to front.
During the Referendum ‘debates’ it was quite clear that Leavers believed that all we had to do was ‘Leave' and everything would be ‘all right’. People pointing out that that wasn’t the case were derided as ‘experts. And we’ve had enough of experts”.
I was born just before WWII and grew up in austerity and hard times, which didn’t really ameliorate until the late 50’s or early 60’s. I fear I’m going to die in similarly austere times and it will take those of my grandchildren who are still in the country to put it right.
The one thing that will set this county back decades is a Labour Government in which John McDonnell plays a leading role.
It was a Labour Govt after the War which laid the foundations of recovery.
Nonsense. We have the Atlee Government to thank for these monstrosities:
Stricter rationing than during the war Continued ruinous levels of defence expenditure The wasting of Marshall Aid The Partition of India The Town & Country Planning Act Nationalisation of road transport Active sabotage of private industry that wasn’t nationalised The sale of Roll-Royce engines to the USSR
I’ll give you the introduction of the NHS. Otherwise it was pretty terrible.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing hard Brexit sympathiser who lives in Australia and for whom Brexit will have virtually no personal impact either way
Well, we have established that you cannot see very well at all. I think Pauline Hanson is an idiot.
Most elitist remainers had no personal impact from the consequences of their support of the EU - they don't live in areas dominated by immigrants, their jobs are not the ones at risk from uncontrolled immigration. Are they entitled to an opinion?
Politics and principle are not dependent on self-interest. Perhaps a failure to understand that is why your Tory party has lost its way.
Err, isn't there a negative correlation between immigration levels and Leave vote.
I.e. the lower the level of immigration the higher the Leave vote?
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Remind me - who was it that refused to prepare for no deal? The Remainers, or the Leavers?
Leavers. It was the government who were mandated to leave.
May - Remainer Hammond - Remainer Rudd - Remainer Civil Service - Remainers
Who was it that argued endlessly on here that we had to reject the idea that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'? Yes, that was the Remainers as well.
I may live in Australia, but that just means I get things upside down, not back to front.
The Leavers told us it would be easy-peasy, that we held all the aces and the EU/rest of the world would be falling over themselves to do trade deals with us - perhaps the Remainers believed them, after all they told us they knew far better than the "experts'.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing hard Brexit sympathiser who lives in Australia and for whom Brexit will have virtually no personal impact either way
Well, we have established that you cannot see very well at all. I think Pauline Hanson is an idiot.
Most elitist remainers had no personal impact from the consequences of their support of the EU - they don't live in areas dominated by immigrants, their jobs are not the ones at risk from uncontrolled immigration. Are they entitled to an opinion?
Politics and principle are not dependent on self-interest. Perhaps a failure to understand that is why your Tory party has lost its way.
Err, isn't there a negative correlation between immigration levels and Leave vote.
I.e. the lower the level of immigration the higher the Leave vote?
Meanwhile I think you have to include Australia as an area unaffected by EU migration into the UK.
You KEEP ignoring the fact that being in the CU is basically the same as being in on.
Wrong, EU rules are quite clear only the Single Market requires free movement not a Customs Union and let alone the customs partnership May is proposing. Those rules cannot be changed on a whim.
Not forgetting of course we are owed more controls on FOM anyway given Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations.
You were talking about the customs union, not the customs partnership (which the EU has already rejected). Don't change the terms of the discussion because you are losing.
Here is some reality for you:
A senior EU official has issued a blunt warning to the UK that it cannot solve the Irish border issue by making the so-called backstop guarantee on avoiding a hard border a UK-wide solution....
There was also a sharp warning that the Irish solution must involve full alignment of EU rules on goods, standards and regulations for Northern Ireland in order to avoid a hard border, and not just alignment on customs.....
The senior official said: "What we need to have is the recognition that the backstop has to be Northern Ireland specific.
"We have to do away with the fantasy that there is an all-UK solution to that."
[A] EU source, who said: "Let me make it very clear. The regulatory alignment option is not available on an all-UK basis because it would amount to selective participation in the single market..."
My emphasis.
Since when did alignment on 'goods, standards and regulations' between NI and Ireland involve unfettered freedom of movement from the EU to the UK? Answer: Never
Let's try again. YOUR leader has king.
Exactly which cherry do you think they are talking about?
No let's try again with YOU. It may have passed you by but there was an agreement between May and Barnier, the UK and the EU in December that there would be regulatory alignment and a form of customs partnership between the whole of the UK, not just NI and the EU. Without that agreement stage 1 of the talks would not have completed and the move to FTA talks would not have begun. The fact some faceless minor EU backroom functionary is trying to shit stir to a newspaper does not change that.
FTA talks have not begun. Did you not notice? The EU rejected your leaders interpretation of the backstop. And your party admitted this week that the 40bn we agreed to pay is NOT linked to the EU ever delivering a trade agreement.
Mr. HYUFD, did she not come to regret the single market?
Maybe the extent of the rules and regulations that came with it but when she signed up to the single market in 1987 I don't think she expected it would lead to free movement from Eastern Europe to the UK in 2 decades time, nor that the UK PM of the time would be so stupid as to allow that free movement without any transition controls
Nonsense. We have the Atlee Government to thank for these monstrosities:
Stricter rationing than during the war Continued ruinous levels of defence expenditure The wasting of Marshall Aid The Partition of India The Town & Country Planning Act Nationalisation of road transport Active sabotage of private industry that wasn’t nationalised The sale of Roll-Royce engines to the USSR
I’ll give you the introduction of the NHS. Otherwise it was pretty terrible.
Without the NHS we wouldn't have had the Brexit bus. Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Off topic , does TSB have a major data breach ? As there seems to be reports of fraud , with money been taken from accounts , with people saying they have no idea , how their account was accessed.
I think people have randomly been given access to other people's accounts. Some people have taken malicious advantage of that to take money that is not their own. Untangling this is going to be a continuing problem for TSB.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing l impact either way
Well, we have established that you cannot see very well at all. I think ts way.
Clearly not when everything you spout comes from thts
I think Tony Abbott is an idiot as well. I have no interest in Christian conservatism. I am a Thatcherite conservative - shame the Tory party does not represent this any longer.
You have made it clear that you support replacing FOM with FOM-but-called-something-different. Work permits are ONLY of use if the exact number and criteria of work permits is being decided unilaterally by the UK government. That is not what your leader is talking about. She is talking about a system where anyone from the EU will be able to get a 'work permit' if they are offered a job, and that commitment will be in a trade agreement with the EU such that the UK government will not be able to change it.
If the full rights of numbers, criteria and decision to issue work permits residing with the UK Government exclusively is your red line, say so. Then I can save the thread and show it to you later when May sells you out.
Tony Abbott is a Thatcherite conservative plus so you have just affirmed everything I said. Though of course Thatcher took the UK into the single market and backed membership of the EEC so she was certainly no hard Brexiteer as PM.
Even work permits with a job offer are fine by me, at the moment anyone from the EU can come to the UK job offer or not for at least 3 months
You know nothing about Australian politics if you think Tony Abbott is a Thatcherite. Or you don't understand what a Thatcherite is. Probably both.
Anyway, you have just confirmed that you don't want the abolition of FOM. Good to know. If all it takes to enter the UK is a letter offering a job, then don't you think that would be rather easy to arrange? Which is, of course, the point. Another sellout.
Mr. HYUFD, did she not come to regret the single market?
Maybe the extent of the rules and regulations that came with it but when she signed up to the single market in 1987 I don't think she expected it would lead to free movement from Eastern Europe to the UK in 2 decades time, nor that the UK PM of the time would be so stupid as to allow that free movement without any transition controls
For goodness sake, stop crapping on about transitional controls. These would have expired ages ago. What difference would it have made? They just would all have arrived a few years later.
Nonsense. We have the Atlee Government to thank for these monstrosities:
Stricter rationing than during the war Continued ruinous levels of defence expenditure The wasting of Marshall Aid The Partition of India The Town & Country Planning Act Nationalisation of road transport Active sabotage of private industry that wasn’t nationalised The sale of Roll-Royce engines to the USSR
I’ll give you the introduction of the NHS. Otherwise it was pretty terrible.
Without the NHS we wouldn't have had the Brexit bus. Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.
Nonsense. We have the Atlee Government to thank for these monstrosities:
Stricter rationing than during the war Continued ruinous levels of defence expenditure The wasting of Marshall Aid The Partition of India The Town & Country Planning Act Nationalisation of road transport Active sabotage of private industry that wasn’t nationalised The sale of Roll-Royce engines to the USSR
I’ll give you the introduction of the NHS. Otherwise it was pretty terrible.
Without the NHS we wouldn't have had the Brexit bus. Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.
Clement Attlee, j'accuse!
The Uk as a Victor did not receive Marshall Aid.
The UK received the largest share of Marshall Aid.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Off topic , does TSB have a major data breach ? As there seems to be reports of fraud , with money been taken from accounts , with people saying they have no idea , how their account was accessed.
I think people have randomly been given access to other people's accounts. Some people have taken malicious advantage of that to take money that is not their own. Untangling this is going to be a continuing problem for TSB.
It’s an almighty screw-up, is going to cost TSB an absolute fortune to put right. Hope the banking ombudsman and small claims courts throw the book at them.
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
No, Australia has an immigration system where we only allow skilled migrants
Quick question: you are evidently passionate about my country and I’m sure I can speak for many Remainers when I say that we here are flattered at your interest in what we’re up to.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing hard Brexit sympathiser who lives in Australia and for whom Brexit will have virtually no personal impact either way
Well, we have established that you cannot see very well at all. I think Pauline Hanson is an idiot.
Most elitist remainers had no personal impact from the consequences of their support of the EU - they don't live in areas dominated by immigrants, their jobs are not the ones at risk from uncontrolled immigration. Are they entitled to an opinion?
Politics and principle are not dependent on self-interest. Perhaps a failure to understand that is why your Tory party has lost its way.
Err, isn't there a negative correlation between immigration levels and Leave vote.
I.e. the lower the level of immigration the higher the Leave vote?
So explain why the area which had the highest level of EU immigration also had the highest Leave vote.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Off topic , does TSB have a major data breach ? As there seems to be reports of fraud , with money been taken from accounts , with people saying they have no idea , how their account was accessed.
I think people have randomly been given access to other people's accounts. Some people have taken malicious advantage of that to take money that is not their own. Untangling this is going to be a continuing problem for TSB.
It’s an almighty screw-up, is going to cost TSB an absolute fortune to put right. Hope the banking ombudsman and small claims courts throw the book at them.
Pleased I’m not their IT director!
What I don't get is why people haven't left yet. Were they my bank I would have closed the account 3 weeks ago.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Off topic , does TSB have a major data breach ? As there seems to be reports of fraud , with money been taken from accounts , with people saying they have no idea , how their account was accessed.
I think people have randomly been given access to other people's accounts. Some people have taken malicious advantage of that to take money that is not their own. Untangling this is going to be a continuing problem for TSB.
It’s an almighty screw-up, is going to cost TSB an absolute fortune to put right. Hope the banking ombudsman and small claims courts throw the book at them.
Pleased I’m not their IT director!
True ,
However sim swap fraud ,seems to me a problem for all mobile banking.
Especially as it seems a weak link , to get the swap from mobile phone companies.With minimal personal information, which could be obtained easily.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Off topic , does TSB have a major data breach ? As there seems to be reports of fraud , with money been taken from accounts , with people saying they have no idea , how their account was accessed.
I think people have randomly been given access to other people's accounts. Some people have taken malicious advantage of that to take money that is not their own. Untangling this is going to be a continuing problem for TSB.
It’s an almighty screw-up, is going to cost TSB an absolute fortune to put right. Hope the banking ombudsman and small claims courts throw the book at them.
Pleased I’m not their IT director!
What I don't get is why people haven't left yet. Were they my bank I would have closed the account 3 weeks ago.
Looking at the moneysaving expert website I see you can get £200 for switching a current account. I've got no complaints about my own bank, but that is tempting.
Anyway, time for me to bugger off. Stumbled across this, which might find favour with Blackadder/Star Wars fans. It's the first part of the tale of Darth Melchett: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYHp_Ofb3CI
Mr. HYUFD, did she not come to regret the single market?
Maybe the extent of the rules and regulations that came with it but when she signed up to the single market in 1987 I don't think she expected it would lead to free movement from Eastern Europe to the UK in 2 decades time, nor that the UK PM of the time would be so stupid as to allow that free movement without any transition controls
For goodness sake, stop crapping on about transitional controls. These would have expired ages ago. What difference would it have made? They just would all have arrived a few years later.
In my view it was actually the lack of those transitional controls which was pivotal in getting Leave a majority given Leave only got 52%.
It was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years in 2004 unlike say France and Germany during that period which led to a disproportionate number of Eastern European migrants coming here
I am British but currently live in Australia. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
It is extremely easy to understand but my question persists. None of this affects you.
Of course it affects me, I am British.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing l impact either way
Well, we have established that you cannot see very well at all. I think ts way.
Clearly not when everything you spout comes from thts
I think Tony Abbott is an idiot as well. I have no interest in Christian conservatism. I am a Thatcherite conservative - shame the Tory sively is your red line, say so. Then I can save the thread and show it to you later when May sells you out.
Tony Abbott is a Thatcherite conservative plus so you have just affirmed everything I said. Though of course Thatcher took the UK into the single market and backed membership of the EEC so she was certainly no hard Brexiteer as PM.
Even work permits with a job offer are fine by me, at the moment anyone from the EU can come to the UK job offer or not for at least 3 months
You know nothing about Australian politics if you think Tony Abbott is a Thatcherite. Or you don't understand what a Thatcherite is. Probably both.
Anyway, you have just confirmed that you don't want the abolition of FOM. Good to know. If all it takes to enter the UK is a letter offering a job, then don't you think that would be rather easy to arrange? Which is, of course, the point. Another sellout.
HYUFD for FOMINO.
Ha! Ha! Ha! It was Margaret Thatcher who campaigned for our entry into the EEC in the first place in 1975 and Margaret Thatcher who signed up to the UK joining the single market in 1987 and you talk to me about not understanding what a Thatcherite is!
I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!
I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!
Tony Benn campaigned to stay out of the EEC in 1975 and for socialism in 1983 so I can see your logic, Corbyn probably believes the same, after all he wants state control of public services and most industries not an unfettered free market
Mr. HYUFD, did she not come to regret the single market?
Maybe the extent of the rules and regulations that came with it but when she signed up to the single market in 1987 I don't think she expected it would lead to free movement from Eastern Europe to the UK in 2 decades time, nor that the UK PM of the time would be so stupid as to allow that free movement without any transition controls
For goodness sake, stop crapping on about transitional controls. These would have expired ages ago. What difference would it have made? They just would all have arrived a few years later.
In my view it was actually the lack of those transitional controls which was pivotal in getting Leave a majority given Leave only got 52%.
It was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years in 2004 unlike say France and Germany during that period which led to a disproportionate number of Eastern European migrants coming here
Except that they would have expired in 2011 yet in eg 2015 almost every single poll gave a substantial lead to Remain - and Remain were overwhelming favourites. Something else was involved.
As for thwarting, I'm afraid I can't find the chaps name (he appeared on the Sky programme The Pledge, if that helps anyone, and I think is a Lib Dem peer) overtly called in the Lords for our departure to be averted.
Anyway, off to watch practice.
Again, no exit date was on the ballot paper. All that people voted for was to Leave. Nothing else. It’s incredibly anti-demcratic to put words in their mouth.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
My money is on a combination of all three.
Yes in reality , that hits the nail on the head.
Makes TSB look competent.
Off topic , does TSB have a major data breach ? As there seems to be reports of fraud , with money been taken from accounts , with people saying they have no idea , how their account was accessed.
I think people have randomly been given access to other people's accounts. Some people have taken malicious advantage of that to take money that is not their own. Untangling this is going to be a continuing problem for TSB.
It’s an almighty screw-up, is going to cost TSB an absolute fortune to put right. Hope the banking ombudsman and small claims courts throw the book at them.
Pleased I’m not their IT director!
True ,
However sim swap fraud ,seems to me a problem for all mobile banking.
Especially as it seems a weak link , to get the swap from mobile phone companies.With minimal personal information, which could be obtained easily.
Anything that relies on a mobile phone number as a password is by definition insecure. Why any company does it, let alone a bank, completely defies belief.
Reactions of various companies’ “security” departments will also soon mean that if you have your bag stolen with your bank cards and phone, you’ll find it impossible to cancel either the SIM card or the bank card without the other. Will be a right mess.
Mr. HYUFD, did she not come to regret the single market?
Maybe the extent of the rules and regulations that came with it but when she signed up to the single market in 1987 I don't think she expected it would lead to free movement from Eastern Europe to the UK in 2 decades time, nor that the UK PM of the time would be so stupid as to allow that free movement without any transition controls
For goodness sake, stop crapping on about transitional controls. These would have expired ages ago. What difference would it have made? They just would all have arrived a few years later.
In my view it was actually the lack of those transitional controls which was pivotal in getting Leave a majority given Leave only got 52%.
It was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years in 2004 unlike say France and Germany during that period which led to a disproportionate number of Eastern European migrants coming here
Except that they would have expired in 2011 yet in eg 2015 almost every single poll gave a substantial lead to Remain - and Remain were overwhelming favourites. Something else was involved.
So what? Completely irrelevant as they would have expired in France and Germany etc at the same time. It was the UK almost exclusively alone in the EU lacking those transition controls from 2004 to 2011 which led to do many coming here.
If you may remember polls had Remain ahead even on the eve of poll (and no not every poll had a big Remain lead in 2015 even if most had Remain ahead) so the polls were wrong.
Yet when asked why they voted Leave the two main reasons given for voting Leave were sovereignty and immigration and given it was the latter as an issue which got so many Leave voters to the polls I stand absolutely by my assertion.
I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!
Tony Benn campaigned to stay out of the EEC in 1975 and for socialism in 1983 so I can see your logic, Corbyn probably believes the same, after all he wants state control of public services and most industries not an unfettered free market
I actually voted Leave back in 1975 too. My reasoning in 2017 was very different,however, in that I have not held strong views on the EU for several decades - and would not have been upset had the result gone the other way.What swung my vote in the end was the acute distaste I felt for the campaigning style of Cameron and Osborne. At the 2015 election they had successfully used scaremongering to win re-election - 'A Labour Govt will mean the SNP controlling Milliband'etc . They tried the same approach a year later at the London Mayoral election - and received a bloody nose. In the Brexit campaign , they were quite deliberately lying to their own people - trying to scare voters by peddling rubbish about the immediate economic consequences of a Leave vote. I had no wish to see that approach to politics succeed - demonstrating as it did basic contempt for the democratic process.I voted accordingly to deny those forces the triumph they were seeking.
I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!
Tony Benn campaigned to stay out of the EEC in 1975 and for socialism in 1983 so I can see your logic, Corbyn probably believes the same, after all he wants state control of public services and most industries not an unfettered free market
I actually voted Leave back in 1975 too. My reasoning in 2017 was very different,however, in that I have not held strong views on the EU for several decades - and would not have been upset had the result gone the other way.What swung my vote in the end was the acute distaste I felt for the campaigning style of Cameron and Osborne. At the 2015 election they had successfully used scaremongering to win re-election - 'A Labour Govt will mean the SNP controlling Milliband'etc . They tried the same approach a year later at the London Mayoral election - and received a bloody nose. In the Brexit campaign , they were quite deliberately lying to their own people - trying to scare voters by peddling rubbish about the immediate economic consequences of a Leave vote. I had no wish to see that approach to politics succeed - demonstrating as it did basic contempt for the democratic process.I voted accordingly to deny those forces the triumph they were seeking.
I suspect the socially liberal, pro free market, limited state views of Cameron and Osborne were also a factor in your Leave vote as anathema to your socially conservative, socialist/social democrat ideology even if you were not a fan of their tactics either
As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing l impact either way
Well, we have established that you cannot see very well at all. I think ts way.
Clearly not when everything you spout comes from thts
I think Tony Abbott is an idiot as well. I have no interest in Christian conservatism. I am a Thatcherite conservative - shame the Tory sively is your red line, say so. Then I can save the thread and show it to you later when May sells you out.
Tony Abbott is a Thatcherite conservative plus so you have just affirmed everything I said. Though of course Thatcher took the UK into the single market and backed membership of the EEC so she was certainly no hard Brexiteer as PM.
Even work permits with a job offer are fine by me, at the moment anyone from the EU can come to the UK job offer or not for at least 3 months
You know nothing about Australian politics if you think Tony Abbott is a Thatcherite. Or you don't understand what a Thatcherite is. Probably both.
Anyway, you have just confirmed that you don't want the abolition of FOM. Good to know. If all it takes to enter the UK is a letter offering a job, then don't you think that would be rather easy to arrange? Which is, of course, the point. Another sellout.
HYUFD for FOMINO.
Ha! Ha! Ha! It was Margaret Thatcher who campaigned for our entry into the EEC in the first place in 1975 and Margaret Thatcher who signed up to the UK joining the single market in 1987 and you talk to me about not understanding what a Thatcherite is!
Thatcher also realised when the EU started to morph into the sort of controlling, undemocratic and bureaucratic state that she despised and she changed her previous support. She stood up to virtually her whole cabinet and lost her office because she was not prepared to go along with the cosy consensus. Time proved her right.
Then in your case, you have spent the best part of two years on this forum declaring that FOM must end yet the moment it becomes obvious that May is going to sell out on this, you display what I think the great Margaret described as an 'indiarubber quality'.
Thatcher was about principles. You wouldn't get it.
I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!
How embarrassing. Cameron is completely nonchalant about the matter and Osborne is clearly enjoying himself to the full editing the Evening Standard. You sound a bit of a twit.
Comments
Since as MP’s they are duty bound to give their best assessment of the situation and vote accordingly, they are withdrawing the Article 50 letter.
But of course it won’t happen. Sadly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Most_championship_points_in_a_season
EDIT: This is an absolute points list, but the percentages are still very high.
Actually yes there is.
In the recent polling by YouGov the following results occurred.
Party:
Conservative ……. 42%
Labour ……………. 38%
Who would be best Prime Minister
Theresa May ………… 37%
Don't Know ………….. 35%
Jeremy Corbyn ………. 27%
Look at the evidence of who would be best Prime Minister and the whopping 35% are 'Don't Knows'. It is these voters who are actually after 'swing voters', they are the ones who are looking for a Prime Minister who they think would be better than Corbyn.
Now look at the figures for EU tracker polls (taking into account that presently the publicity has been overwhelmingly anti-Brexit by Remoaners and the EU treating a weak PM as you would expect):
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?'
Right ……….. 43%
Wrong ……… 44%
Don't Know …… 13%
So given that 'Wrong' only have a 1% lead and considering the vast majority of publicity for months on end has been Remoaner based it is amazing that this is such a small lead, this can easily be interpreted that with the right leader in place the electorate will still back 'Leave'.
You see when examining the polling evidence it has to be put into context. Even the Local Election results were better for Conservatives and worse for Labour than most polls showed, but this was not a success for the Conservatives led by May but rather May didn't take part and the LEAVE support went overwhelmingly to the Conservatives.
There is much evidence if you just care to look at it without bias.
The country wants a new leader, the Conservative Party wants May to stand down before the next General ELection (see ConservativeHome for evidence of that). Out of the top 5 candidates supported by members 4 are Brexiters and the 5th is a Brexit supporter who voted and campaigned Remain and now says he is a Brexit supporter again.
But why so? It is only an academic exercise for you whereas we’ve actually got to live here.
In the recent polling by YouGov the following results occurred.
Party:
Conservative ……. 42%
Labour ……………. 38%
Who would be best Prime Minister
Theresa May ………… 37%
Don't Know ………….. 35%
Jeremy Corbyn ………. 27%
Look at the evidence of who would be best Prime Minister and the whopping 35% are 'Don't Knows'. It is these voters who are actually after 'swing voters', they are the ones who are looking for a Prime Minister who they think would be better than Corbyn.
Now look at the figures for EU tracker polls (taking into account that presently the publicity has been overwhelmingly anti-Brexit by Remoaners and the EU treating a weak PM as you would expect):
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?'
Right ……….. 43%
Wrong ……… 44%
Don't Know …… 13%
So given that 'Wrong' only have a 1% lead and considering the vast majority of publicity for months on end has been Remoaner based it is amazing that this is such a small lead, this can easily be interpreted that with the right leader in place the electorate will still back 'Leave'.
You see when examining the polling evidence it has to be put into context. Even the Local Election results were better for Conservatives and worse for Labour than most polls showed, but this was not a success for the Conservatives led by May but rather May didn't take part and the LEAVE support went overwhelmingly to the Conservatives.
There is much evidence if you just care to look at it without bias.
The country wants a new leader, the Conservative Party wants May to stand down before the next General ELection (see ConservativeHome for evidence of that). Out of the top 5 candidates supported by members 4 are Brexiters and the 5th is a Brexit supporter who voted and campaigned Remain and now says he is a Brexit supporter again.
However, May is popular with current Conservative voters, almost certainly more popular than any rival.
My reply therefore is:
In the recent polling by YouGov the following results occurred.
Party:
Conservative ……. 42%
Labour ……………. 38%
Who would be best Prime Minister
Theresa May ………… 37%
Don't Know ………….. 35%
Jeremy Corbyn ………. 27%
Look at the evidence of who would be best Prime Minister and the whopping 35% are 'Don't Knows'. It is these voters who are actually after 'swing voters', they are the ones who are looking for a Prime Minister who they think would be better than Corbyn.
Now look at the figures for EU tracker polls (taking into account that presently the publicity has been overwhelmingly anti-Brexit by Remoaners and the EU treating a weak PM as you would expect):
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?'
Right ……….. 43%
Wrong ……… 44%
Don't Know …… 13%
So given that 'Wrong' only have a 1% lead and considering the vast majority of publicity for months on end has been Remoaner based it is amazing that this is such a small lead, this can easily be interpreted that with the right leader in place the electorate will still back 'Leave'.
You see when examining the polling evidence it has to be put into context. Even the Local Election results were better for Conservatives and worse for Labour than most polls showed, but this was not a success for the Conservatives led by May but rather May didn't take part and the LEAVE support went overwhelmingly to the Conservatives.
There is much evidence if you just care to look at it without bias.
The country wants a new leader, the Conservative Party wants May to stand down before the next General ELection (see ConservativeHome for evidence of that). Out of the top 5 candidates supported by members 4 are Brexiters and the 5th is a Brexit supporter who voted and campaigned Remain and now says he is a Brexit supporter again.
The only consolation (if you can call it that) is that Muddling Through seems to have served this country fairly well in the past.
Good morning, everyone.
Not forgetting of course we are owed more controls on FOM anyway given Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations.
Surely you don't suggest that the only valid form of patriotism is based on economic self-interest?
It’s a bit liking marrying someone, moving out, and then telling them nothing has changed.
And ... oh dear ... how often it happens with these passionate Europhiles, there was that unfortunate little incident when he overclaimed his European expenses.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2408525.stm
Of course, many us might wonder what the European Unit of the Welsh Joint Education committee actually does.
Mike German was a former leader of the Welsh LibDems. His successful stewardship of that group can be judged by the fact that -- even under a PR system -- they have been reduced to one seat and fifth party status.
England doomed.
Just a question of losing by an innings or not.
Here is some reality for you:
A senior EU official has issued a blunt warning to the UK that it cannot solve the Irish border issue by making the so-called backstop guarantee on avoiding a hard border a UK-wide solution....
There was also a sharp warning that the Irish solution must involve full alignment of EU rules on goods, standards and regulations for Northern Ireland in order to avoid a hard border, and not just alignment on customs.....
The senior official said: "What we need to have is the recognition that the backstop has to be Northern Ireland specific.
"We have to do away with the fantasy that there is an all-UK solution to that."
[A] EU source, who said: "Let me make it very clear. The regulatory alignment option is not available on an all-UK basis because it would amount to selective participation in the single market..."
My emphasis.
When you are so far away it’s easy to get things out of proportion.
Most elitist remainers had no personal impact from the consequences of their support of the EU - they don't live in areas dominated by immigrants, their jobs are not the ones at risk from uncontrolled immigration. Are they entitled to an opinion?
Politics and principle are not dependent on self-interest. Perhaps a failure to understand that is why your Tory party has lost its way.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DMcCaffreySKY/status/1000296238334599168
MEP Luke Ming Flanagan, a former TD for the [Roscannon] constituency said he always knew voters would come out in favour of repeal: “I always knew voters were not conservative – they are just a bit complicated.”
And where, incidentally, farmers are beginnimng to grumble (what’s new) about the shortage of labour.
Makes TSB look competent.
Off topic , does TSB have a major data breach ?
As there seems to be reports of fraud , with money been taken from accounts , with people saying they have no idea , how their account was accessed.
https://twitter.com/AWMurrison/status/806489712215158784
https://twitter.com/HughRBennett/status/992026511132823553
Hammond - Remainer
Rudd - Remainer
Civil Service - Remainers
Who was it that argued endlessly on here that we had to reject the idea that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'? Yes, that was the Remainers as well.
I may live in Australia, but that just means I get things upside down, not back to front.
I suspect he'll make it to qualifying but it's not certain. Mostly written the pre-qualifying ramble, will check the markets.
I dislike the later times. Stupid Liberty.
The only mitigating factor being that they might not want to trash the country as they do it. Your country.
However, this was flatly dismissed by the senior EU source, who said: "Let me make it very clear. The regulatory alignment option is not available on an all-UK basis because it would amount to selective participation in the single market...."
Essentially the EU is arguing that for the UK to try to avail of the backstop on a UK-wide basis would amount to cherry picking.
Exactly which cherry do you think they are talking about?
The House of Commons is closed for the half term break and meets again on 4th of June, there are 20 sitting days in June and another 18 in July, after that the house is in recess until September when there are just 7 sitting days scheduled.
An early General Election would have to be just about the first item on the agenda either in early June or September to get it scheduled on the 5th or 12th of July or on the 4th, 11th, 18th or 25th of October.
Any other dates would encroach on either the Summer holiday season or would be after the clocks go back on the 28th of October.
Of course Parliament could be recalled to sit on days in the Summer when it's not scheduled to be sitting and there's no law to say that polling day can't be in August or in the Winter or that polling day has to be on a Thursday.
I consider the October scenario a slight possibility but it would have to be well flagged up in advance because it would result in the cancelation of the party conference season.
Any other date would be deeply unpopular and impractical and if I could afford to tie up money for six months I would lay any price up to 100/1 against a General Election in 2018.
I am with you in spirit, but I just don’t see how we can get to a hard Brexit from where we are today without 1) chaos on 29/03/19, which will in due course be sorted, but leading on to 2) Corbyn winning power on the back of anger about 1).
People pointing out that that wasn’t the case were derided as ‘experts. And we’ve had enough of experts”.
I was born just before WWII and grew up in austerity and hard times, which didn’t really ameliorate until the late 50’s or early 60’s.
I fear I’m going to die in similarly austere times and it will take those of my grandchildren who are still in the country to put it right.
The slightly later times are better for me at GMT+4, and a lot better for the important US market. Probably not so good for AU and NZ though.
You have made it clear that you support replacing FOM with FOM-but-called-something-different. Work permits are ONLY of use if the exact number and criteria of work permits is being decided unilaterally by the UK government. That is not what your leader is talking about. She is talking about a system where anyone from the EU will be able to get a 'work permit' if they are offered a job, and that commitment will be in a trade agreement with the EU such that the UK government will not be able to change it.
If the full rights of numbers, criteria and decision to issue work permits residing with the UK Government exclusively is your red line, say so. Then I can save the thread and show it to you later when May sells you out.
Liberty would definitely agree with you about the important US market. Take it you've heard the Miami news?
Markets aren't up yet. Got to have something to eat fairly shortly, so if they don't get their skates on there won't be a tip.
What will bring Labour into power is queues of lorries on the M20 (etc)!
Even work permits with a job offer are fine by me, at the moment anyone from the EU can come to the UK job offer or not for at least 3 months
Stricter rationing than during the war
Continued ruinous levels of defence expenditure
The wasting of Marshall Aid
The Partition of India
The Town & Country Planning Act
Nationalisation of road transport
Active sabotage of private industry that wasn’t nationalised
The sale of Roll-Royce engines to the USSR
I’ll give you the introduction of the NHS. Otherwise it was pretty terrible.
I.e. the lower the level of immigration the higher the Leave vote?
In the 50’s that was about the only thing routinely trotted out by the Tories as evidence of Labour incompetence!
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/monaco-pre-qualifying-2018.html
Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.
Clement Attlee, j'accuse!
Anyway, you have just confirmed that you don't want the abolition of FOM. Good to know. If all it takes to enter the UK is a letter offering a job, then don't you think that would be rather easy to arrange? Which is, of course, the point. Another sellout.
HYUFD for FOMINO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
https://twitter.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/1000336959313727488
Pleased I’m not their IT director!
However sim swap fraud ,seems to me a problem for all mobile banking.
Especially as it seems a weak link , to get the swap from mobile phone companies.With minimal personal information, which could be obtained easily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYHp_Ofb3CI
It was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years in 2004 unlike say France and Germany during that period which led to a disproportionate number of Eastern European migrants coming here
https://twitter.com/B8CSP0RF/status/1000339528530395136
Reactions of various companies’ “security” departments will also soon mean that if you have your bag stolen with your bank cards and phone, you’ll find it impossible to cancel either the SIM card or the bank card without the other. Will be a right mess.
https://twitter.com/HighlandNews/status/1000351864712450050
If you may remember polls had Remain ahead even on the eve of poll (and no not every poll had a big Remain lead in 2015 even if most had Remain ahead) so the polls were wrong.
Yet when asked why they voted Leave the two main reasons given for voting Leave were sovereignty and immigration and given it was the latter as an issue which got so many Leave voters to the polls I stand absolutely by my assertion.
Then in your case, you have spent the best part of two years on this forum declaring that FOM must end yet the moment it becomes obvious that May is going to sell out on this, you display what I think the great Margaret described as an 'indiarubber quality'.
Thatcher was about principles. You wouldn't get it.