Don't look now, England third favourites for the World cup...!
Brazil were first favourite an hour ago.
If you mean, Foxy, that England might cease to be third favourite if they become 2-0 down to Sweden, then I am in agreement.
Just that we haven't seen the last upset yet.
I must admit I am surprised to see Sweden effectively considered the weakest team left in the competition. I know Russia got lucky once but I can't see it happening again.
A Canada deal is the only way to respect the Leave vote and most of the promises the Leave campaign made ie end free movement and control our borders, conduct our own trade deals, reclaim money from the EU and end ECJ jurisdiction over the UK and get a FTA.
A Norway deal technically leaves the EU but in effect fills almost none of the Leave campaign's promises and requires free movement and o payments to the EU
I agree Canada does satisfy a Leave vote at one esa May's difficulties.
Leave voters effectively said 'fuck big business' when they ignored business warnings on the economic risks of Brexit and voted Leave anyway to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration.
Disrespect that and you disrespect democracy, a Canada deal has to at least be tried for a few year's and if we can achieve it it will still 'fuck business' less than WTO terms
I do hope you'll respect the democratic decision to vote in a Corbyn/McDonnell government in 2022 or sooner, due to the mass unemployment a CTA Brexit will bring on.
Democracy involves respecting minority rights too, especially when the majority is tiny. Leavers can vote to destroy their own economic future, but that doesn't mean Remainers have to sit by and accept the destruction of theirs.
On your second paragraph I am sorry you are wrong, democracy means respecting the manifesto of the party which wins a majority or the parties manifestoes in the event of a coalition or the winning campaign in a referendum. If you lose you lose, tough, you just try again at the next election, as a loser you have no say in the running of the government
No, what you're describing there is an elected dictatorship. Now I know the British parliamentary system does produce such from time to time, but most people tend to think that's one of the bad features of our constitution and when it happens often produces poor government and poor decisions, e.g. the Iraq War.
Disrespect that and you disrespect democracy, a Canada deal has to at least be tried for a few year's and if we can achieve it it will still 'fuck business' less than WTO terms
You keep on saying things like "WTO for a few years" or "Canada for a few years". Have you actually considered how much has to change on the ground to move from one kind of relationship to another? The government can't just flick a switch once they've decided.
Technically they can, though obviously the less preparation the more difficult the switch will be for the economy
We have managed to put ourselves into a situation where all our choices are bad. That includes staying in the European Union. Although membership has BY FAR the best practical outcomes, it is the only option that has been explicitly rejected. We can't pretend the vote didn't happen. The Brexit chaos stems entirely from that contradiction.
Ivan Krastev says that the problem with referendums is that they can't negotiate with each other. We have a conflict between the Brexit referendum and the Good Friday Agreement referendum, and perhaps that's a good reason to return the final say back to the people once the implications of Brexit are clear enough.
I don't think people realise just how bad the Fuck Business option, the Vassal State option and the No Deal We're all Fucked option are. These are the only alternatives to cancelling the whole thing. The denial about what our choices really are is feeding into the instability.
Canada "fucks business", hence Johnson's comment. Businesses that rely on supply chains or regulatory compliance will no longer base themselves in the UK. This includes Airbus, almost all automotive manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, much agriculture and a large part of financial services. Our main industries and more. We're talking millions of jobs at risk. Canada isn't a common market - that's Norway. Canada is the ability to sell widgets without tariffs.
A Canada deal is the only way to respect the Leave vote and most of the promises the Leave campaign made ie end free movement and control our borders, conduct our own trade deals, reclaim money from the EU and end ECJ jurisdiction over the UK and get a FTA.
A Norway deal technically leaves the EU but in effect fills almost none of the Leave campaign's promises and requires free movement and ECJ jurisdiction and add in a Customs Union too and we cannot do our own trade deals either, WTO terms on the other hand fully respects the Leave vote but means no free trade deal and tariffs on trade with the EU and significant economic damage potentially albeit with no regulatory alignment and no payments to the EU
You talk about respecting the Leave vote. How about respecting the Remain vote which was almost as great? We need to respect both. A Norway deal plus Customs Union does that.
The Remain vote lost, tough. Otherwise you may as well have said Major should have respected the Kinnock vote in 1992 or Blair the Howard vote in 2005 and adopted part of their manifestoes
The acute problem (problem depends on if you are a giver of a service thats easily replicable or purchaser of it) we have with eastern european migration could be sorted by changing how our welfare state works for everyone.
The rapid stabilisation in the level of A8 migration suggests that this is not a chronic problem, so leaving the single market to 'solve' it is not a good idea.
Most other EU and EEA nations at least imposed transition controls on free movement from the A8 nations for 7 years unlike Blair
Indeed, but public concerns about migration go back to the rapid increase in non-EU migration from 1997. EU expansion was just the icing on the cake in terms of numbers.
It was still the tipping point in the rise of UKIP especially
The acute problem (problem depends on if you are a giver of a service thats easily replicable or purchaser of it) we have with eastern european migration could be sorted by changing how our welfare state works for everyone.
The rapid stabilisation in the level of A8 migration suggests that this is not a chronic problem, so leaving the single market to 'solve' it is not a good idea.
Most other EU and EEA nations at least imposed transition controls on free movement from the A8 nations for 7 years unlike Blair
All other things being equal, with the global lingua franca as our mother tongue, we're always going to be disproportionately attractive to immigrants from other EU countries.....
Attractive yes does not mean we cannot control which of them we let in
The acute problem (problem depends on if you are a giver of a service thats easily replicable or purchaser of it) we have with eastern european migration could be sorted by changing how our welfare state works for everyone.
The rapid stabilisation in the level of A8 migration suggests that this is not a chronic problem, so leaving the single market to 'solve' it is not a good idea.
Most other EU and EEA nations at least imposed transition controls on free movement from the A8 nations for 7 years unlike Blair
Indeed, but public concerns about migration go back to the rapid increase in non-EU migration from 1997. EU expansion was just the icing on the cake in terms of numbers.
It was still the tipping point in the rise of UKIP especially
It allowed UKIP to link concerns about immigration with EU membership in people's minds, but that doesn't mean we all have to accept UKIP's framing.
Do you know what model is Hondas top selling car in the EU and where it is made?
And the relevance of that to my comment is?
You are saying that the automotive industry (well all industry in fact) will leave the UK if we go Canada Free Trade deal. I am testing your understanding of whether you really understand supply chains and regulatory compliance. So where is Honda's top selling car made? Or more simply how can other countries in the world ship large volumes of cars into the EU market yet, they are not in the single market or the customs union? It is a simple question.
You mean Japan with car manufacture of 10 million vehicles a year has the scale to allow it to manufacture without international supply chains while the UK with a production of less than 2 million units is likely to go the way of Australia in terms of car manufacture when its supply lines are cut? Companies with investments in place won't up roots straight away but they won't put new investments in either. Which comes to the same thing in the end.
Australian car industry shut down because Aus did a FTA with Thailand and plants in Aus could not compete.
No I mean that where ever there are German plants in world big volumes of German auto parts are shipped there from Germany. So Merc and BMW have plants in USA, in 2016 German Auto part exports were $5.37 billion to the USA, full tariffs no customs union. German plants in China were supplied with $8.49billion of parts from Germany. But apparently according to you the $4.65 billion of parts form Germany to UK, will cease because of a 21 mile stretch of water.
The biggest threat to industry here is the idiotic big cost customs partnership and Philip Hammond. He is in control of customs here and he needs to make sure it is as smooth as possible.
A Canada deal is the only way to respect the Leave vote and most of the promises the Leave campaign made ie end free movement and control our borders, conduct our own trade deals, reclaim money from the EU and end ECJ jurisdiction over the UK and get a FTA.
A Norway deal technically leaves the EU but in effect fills almost none of the Leave campaign's promises and requires free movement and o payments to the EU
I agree Canada does satisfy a Leave vote at one esa May's difficulties.
Leave voters effectively said 'fuck big business' when they ignored business warnings on the economic risks of Brexit and voted Leave anyway to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration.
Disrespect that and you disrespect democracy, a Canada deal has to at least be tried for a few year's and if we can achieve it it will still 'fuck business' less than WTO terms
I do hope you'll respect the democratic decision to vote in a Corbyn/McDonnell government in 2022 or sooner, due to the mass unemployment a CTA Brexit will bring on.
Democracy involves respecting minority rights too, especially when the majority is tiny. Leavers can vote to destroy their own economic future, but that doesn't mean Remainers have to sit by and accept the destruction of theirs.
On your second paragraph I am sorry you are wrong, democracy means respecting the manifesto of the party which wins a majority or the parties manifestoes in the event of a coalition or the winning campaign in a referendum. If you lose you lose, tough, you just try again at the next election, as a loser you have no say in the running of the government
No, what you're describing there is an elected dictatorship. Now I know the British parliamentary system does produce such from time to time, but most people tend to think that's one of the bad features of our constitution and when it happens often produces poor government and poor decisions, e.g. the Iraq War.
Nope, what you are describing is an elite dictatorship which bans any manifesto it disagrees with even if that manifesto wins a majority.
The Iraq War may have been less than briliant but Blair won the 2001 general elections and the 2005 general elections and got it through Parliament and therefore the 2003 invasion was not anti democratic
Off topic: I just made a quick exit from a train, stood on the platform and realised I was holding someone else's bag! Fortunately I had time to get back on, swap bags and get off again.
This comes after being stranded at Alexandra Palace earlier due to a trespass incident and having to leg it to the nearest tube station to get to King's Cross...
Sounds bad, but it'll be tough to top DavidL's 'My car burst into flames' story.
Canada "fucks business", hence Johnson's comment. Businesses that rely on supply chains or regulatory compliance will no longer base themselves in the UK. This includes Airbus, almost all automotive manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, much agriculture and a large part of financial services. Our main industries and more. We're talking millions of jobs at risk. Canada isn't a common market - that's Norway. Canada is the ability to sell widgets without tariffs.
A Canada deal is the only way to respect the Leave vote and most of the promises the Leave campaign made ie end free movement and control our borders, conduct our own trade
I agree Canada does satisfy a Leave vote at one esa May's difficulties.
Leave voters effectively said 'fuck big business' when they ignored business warnings on the economic risks of Brexit and voted Leave anyway to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration.
Disrespect that and you disrespect democracy, a Canada deal has to at least be tried for a few year's and if we can achieve it it will still 'fuck business' less than WTO terms
I do hope you'll respect the democratic decision to vote in a Corbyn/McDonnell government in 2022 or sooner, due to the mass unemployment a CTA Brexit will bring on.
Democracy involves respecting minority rights too, especially when the majority is tiny. Leavers can vote to destroy their own economic future, but that doesn't mean Remainers have to sit by and accept the destruction of theirs.
On your first paragraph of course I will, if Corbyn Labour wins next time they will have a mandate to renationalise the railways and utilities and raise taxes on the rich and spend more and give more power to unions beyond question, that does not mean I would not be joining the Opposition to a Corbyn government from day one. Though your premise is not correct either Canada does not have mass unemployment and most UK exports now go outside the EU and most Tory voters are Brexiteers.
On your second paragraph I am sorry you are wrong, democracy means respecting the manifesto of the party which wins a majority or the parties manifestoes in the event of a coalition government or confidence and supply deal with a majority or the winning campaign in a referendum. If you lose you lose, tough, you just try again at the next election, as a loser you have no say in the running of the government
As to the latter, the losers may still have worthwhile points that the winners should take on board, and the winners should remember that the pendulum will shift against them. A Canada deal would be very disruptive at this point.
The acute problem (problem depends on if you are a giver of a service thats easily replicable or purchaser of it) we have with eastern european migration could be sorted by changing how our welfare state works for everyone.
The rapid stabilisation in the level of A8 migration suggests that this is not a chronic problem, so leaving the single market to 'solve' it is not a good idea.
Most other EU and EEA nations at least imposed transition controls on free movement from the A8 nations for 7 years unlike Blair
Indeed, but public concerns about migration go back to the rapid increase in non-EU migration from 1997. EU expansion was just the icing on the cake in terms of numbers.
It was still the tipping point in the rise of UKIP especially
It allowed UKIP to link concerns about immigration with EU membership in people's minds, but that doesn't mean we all have to accept UKIP's framing.
No we could accept it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls which allowed UKIP to frame immigration in an anti EU direction
The acute problem (problem depends on if you are a giver of a service thats easily replicable or purchaser of it) we have with eastern european migration could be sorted by changing how our welfare state works for everyone.
The rapid stabilisation in the level of A8 migration suggests that this is not a chronic problem, so leaving the single market to 'solve' it is not a good idea.
Most other EU and EEA nations at least imposed transition controls on free movement from the A8 nations for 7 years unlike Blair
Indeed, but public concerns about migration go back to the rapid increase in non-EU migration from 1997. EU expansion was just the icing on the cake in terms of numbers.
It was still the tipping point in the rise of UKIP especially
It allowed UKIP to link concerns about immigration with EU membership in people's minds, but that doesn't mean we all have to accept UKIP's framing.
No we could accept it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls which allowed UKIP to frame immigration in an anti EU direction
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that ending EU free movement is the answer.
Canada "fucks business", hence Johnson's comment. Businesses to sell widgets without tariffs.
A Canada deal is the only way to respect the Leave vote and most of the promises the Leave campaign made ie end free movement and control our borders, conduct our own trade
I agree Canada does satisfy a Leave vote at one esa May's difficulties.
Leave voters effectively said 'fuck big business' when they ignored business warnings on the economic risks of Brexit and voted Leave anyway to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration.
Disrespect that and you disrespect democracy, a Canada deal has to at least be tried for a few year's and if we can achieve it it will still 'fuck business' less than WTO terms
I do hope you'll respect the democratic decision to vote in a Corbyn/McDonnell government in 2022 or sooner, due to the mass unemployment a CTA Brexit will bring on.
Democracy involves respecting minority rights too, especially when the majority is tiny. Leavers can vote to destroy their own economic future, but that doesn't mean Remainers have to sit by and accept the destruction of theirs.
On your first paragraph of course I will, if Corbyn Labour wins next time they will have ts now go outside the EU and most Tory voters are Brexiteers.
On your second paragraph I am sorry you are wrong, democracy means respecting the manifesto of the party which wins a majority or the parties manifestoes in the event of a coalition government or confidence and supply deal with a majority or the winning campaign in a referendum. If you lose you lose, tough, you just try again at the next election, as a loser you have no say in the running of the government
As to the latter, the losers may still have worthwhile points that the winners should take on board, and the winners should remember that the pendulum will shift against them. A Canada deal would be very disruptive at this point.
Whether the winner considers the losers 'worthwhile' points is entirely up to the winner and whether they are compatible with the winning manifesto.
The pendulum always does shift eventually but it is up to the losers to shift it sooner rather than later, not the winners. The Leave vote was always going to be disruptive sooner or later if you respected it, otherwise there would have been no point in it for most Leave voters
The acute problem (problem depends on if you are a giver of a service thats easily replicable or purchaser of it) we have with eastern european migration could be sorted by changing how our welfare state works for everyone.
The rapid stabilisation in the level of A8 migration suggests that this is not a chronic problem, so leaving the single market to 'solve' it is not a good idea.
Most other EU and EEA nations at least imposed transition controls on free movement from the A8 nations for 7 years unlike Blair
Indeed, but public concerns about migration go back to the rapid increase in non-EU migration from 1997. EU expansion was just the icing on the cake in terms of numbers.
It was still the tipping point in the rise of UKIP especially
It allowed UKIP to link concerns about immigration with EU membership in people's minds, but that doesn't mean we all have to accept UKIP's framing.
No we could accept it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls which allowed UKIP to frame immigration in an anti EU direction
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that ending EU free movement is the answer.
no less than 92% of Leave supporters believe that immigration from the EU should be limited ‘by introducing an Australian points based system’, a position that is, of course, in direct conflict with the EU’s freedom of movement provisions. Remain voters, in contrast, were not only divided on the issue, but a majority (64%) actually supported the idea too. Although many Remain supporters hold what is seemingly a relatively liberal provision on immigration, this does not necessarily mean that their support for EU membership is rooted in enthusiasm for the Union’s freedom of movement provisions. If anything, the opposite may well sometimes be the case.
We have managed to put ourselves into a situation where all our choices are bad. That includes staying in the European Union. Although membership has BY FAR the best practical outcomes, it is the only option that has been explicitly rejected. We can't pretend the vote didn't happen. The Brexit chaos stems entirely from that contradiction.
Ivan Krastev says that the problem with referendums is that they can't negotiate with each other. We have a conflict between the Brexit referendum and the Good Friday Agreement referendum, and perhaps that's a good reason to return the final say back to the people once the implications of Brexit are clear enough.
I don't think people realise just how bad the Fuck Business option, the Vassal State option and the No Deal We're all Fucked option are. These are the only alternatives to cancelling the whole thing. The denial about what our choices really are is feeding into the instability.
Canada "fucks business", hence Johnson's comment. Businesses that rely on supply chains or regulatory compliance will no longer base themselves in the UK. This includes Airbus, almost all automotive manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, much agriculture and a large part of financial services. Our main industries and more. We're talking millions of jobs at risk. Canada isn't a common market - that's Norway. Canada is the ability to sell widgets without tariffs.
You talk about respecting the Leave vote. How about respecting the Remain vote which was almost as great? We need to respect both. A Norway deal plus Customs Union does that.
The Remain vote lost, tough. Otherwise you may as well have said Major should have respected the Kinnock vote in 1992 or Blair the Howard vote in 2005 and adopted part of their manifestoes
False analogy. General elections typically last 4 or 5 years then there is a chance for a change. The EU referendum was a once a generation change with no manifesto except to leave the EU. Norway plus Customs Union leaves the EU, respects the result and enables the country to come together and move on (except from some zealots on both sides).
Looked correct to me. Subjective call, ball was already out of play so he went down, not definitive enough to ask ref to overturn.
And any 'worstVAR' would have to include the non use of it when 1-2 people are wrestling someone to the ground and it wasn't given.
BiB - Can you point to where in the laws of the game this is mentioned?
The point was it looked to me like the guy who went down was looking for it because the ball was knocked out of play, not that he was actually taken out. You see that all the time in football, when someone is trying to go round a goalkeeper or defender, realise they've overhit it, so go down. And contact alone does not equal a penalty (eg where someone dangles a leg to make sure they get hit).
Edit - and turns out it is a rule in any case according to DavidL. We can trust him, he's a lawyer.
We have managed to put ourselves into a situation where all our choices are bad. That includes staying in the European Union. Although membership has BY FAR the best practical outcomes, it is the only option that has been explicitly rejected. We can't pretend the vote didn't happen. The Brexit chaos stems entirely from that contradiction.
Ivan Krastev says that the problem with referendums is that they can't negotiate with each other. We have a conflict between the Brexit referendum and the Good Friday Agreement referendum, and perhaps that's a good reason to return the final say back to the people once the implications of Brexit are clear enough.
I don't think people realise just how bad the Fuck Business option, the Vassal State option and the No Deal We're all Fucked option are. These are the only alternatives to cancelling the whole thing. The denial about what our choices really are is feeding into the instability.
Canada "fucks business", hence Johnson's comment. Businesses that rely on supply chains or regulatory compliance will no longer base themselves in the UK. This includes Airbus, almost all automotive manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, much agriculture and a large part of financial services. Our main industries and more. We're talking millions of jobs at risk. Canada isn't a common market - that's Norway. Canada is the ability to sell widgets without tariffs.
You talk about respecting the Leave vote. How about respecting the Remain vote which was almost as great? We need to respect both. A Norway deal plus Customs Union does that.
The Remain vote lost, tough. Otherwise you may as well have said Major should have respected the Kinnock vote in 1992 or Blair the Howard vote in 2005 and adopted part of their manifestoes
. Norway plus Customs Union leaves the EU, respects the result and enables the country to come together and move on (except from some zealots on both sides).
no less than 92% of Leave supporters believe that immigration from the EU should be limited ‘by introducing an Australian points based system’, a position that is, of course, in direct conflict with the EU’s freedom of movement provisions. Remain voters, in contrast, were not only divided on the issue, but a majority (64%) actually supported the idea too.
Canada "fucks business, industrial chemicals, much agriculture and a large part of financial services. Our main industries and more. We're talking millions of jobs at risk. Canada isn't a common market - that's Norway. Canada is the ability to sell widgets without tariffs.
A Canada deal is the only way to respect the Leave vote and most of the promises the Leave campaign made ie end free movement and control our borders, conduct our own trade
I agree Canada does satisfy a Leave vote at one esa May's difficulties.
Leave voters effectively said 'fuck big business' when they ignored business warnings on the economic risks of Brexit and voted Leave anyway to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration.
Disrespect that and you disrespect democracy, a Canada deal has to at least be tried for a few year's and if we can achieve it it will still 'fuck business' less than WTO terms
I do hope you'll respect the democratic decision to vote in a Corbyn/McDonnell government in 2022 or sooner, due to the mass unemployment a CTA Brexit will bring on.
Democracy involves respecting minority rights too, especially when the majority is tiny. Leavers can vote to destroy their own economic future, but that doesn't mean Remainers have to sit by and accept the destruction of theirs.
On your first paragraph of course I will, if Corbyn Labour wins next time they will have a mandate to renationalise the railways and utilities and raise taxes on the rich and spend more and give more power to unions beyond question, that does not mean I would not be joining the Opposition to a Corbyn government from day one. Though your premise is not correct either Canada does not have mass unemployment and most UK exports now go outside the EU and most Tory voters are Brexiteers.
On your second paragraph I am sorry you are wrong, democracy means respecting the manifesto of the party which wins a majority or the parties manifestoes in the event of a coalition government or confidence and supply deal with a majority or the winning campaign in a referendum. If you lose you lose, tough, you just try again at the next election, as a loser you have no say in the running of the government
As to the latter, the losers may still have worthwhile points that the winners should take on board, and the winners should remember that the pendulum will shift against them. A Canada deal would be very disruptive at this point.
My view is to get out, and play the long game over 10-20 years.
It may not be possible to politically sustain Brexit any other way.
Looked correct to me. Subjective call, ball was already out of play so he went down, not definitive enough to ask ref to overturn.
And any 'worstVAR' would have to include the non use of it when 1-2 people are wrestling someone to the ground and it wasn't given.
BiB - Can you point to where in the laws of the game this is mentioned?
The point was it looked to me like the guy who went down was looking for it because the ball was knocked out of play, not that he was actually taken out. You see that all the time in football, when someone is trying to go round a goalkeeper or defender, realise they've overhit it, so go down. And contact alone does not equal a penalty (eg where someone dangles a leg to make sure they get hit).
I know what you mean - and that does happen - but I don't think that was the case here.
@DavidL - yes, just found that. It was mighty tight though.
Looked correct to me. Subjective call, ball was already out of play so he went down, not definitive enough to ask ref to overturn.
And any 'worstVAR' would have to include the non use of it when 1-2 people are wrestling someone to the ground and it wasn't given.
BiB - Can you point to where in the laws of the game this is mentioned?
The point was it looked to me like the guy who went down was looking for it because the ball was knocked out of play, not that he was actually taken out. You see that all the time in football, when someone is trying to go round a goalkeeper or defender, realise they've overhit it, so go down. And contact alone does not equal a penalty (eg where someone dangles a leg to make sure they get hit).
I know what you mean - and that does happen - but I don't think that was the case here.
@DavidL - yes, just found that. It was mighty tight though.
Not as obviously, but I think he could see he was not going to get the ball back and acted accordingly when he saw the guy sliding in.
Certainly not so obvious the ref should overturn I think - if he'd have given it I would disagree, but wouldn't think VAR should overturn.
Looked correct to me. Subjective call, ball was already out of play so he went down, not definitive enough to ask ref to overturn.
And any 'worstVAR' would have to include the non use of it when 1-2 people are wrestling someone to the ground and it wasn't given.
BiB - Can you point to where in the laws of the game this is mentioned?
The point was it looked to me like the guy who went down was looking for it because the ball was knocked out of play, not that he was actually taken out. You see that all the time in football, when someone is trying to go round a goalkeeper or defender, realise they've overhit it, so go down. And contact alone does not equal a penalty (eg where someone dangles a leg to make sure they get hit).
I know what you mean - and that does happen - but I don't think that was the case here.
@DavidL - yes, just found that. It was mighty tight though.
Not as obviously, but I think he could see he was not going to get the ball back and acted accordingly when he saw the guy sliding in.
Certainly not so obvious the ref should overturn I think - if he'd have given it I would disagree, but wouldn't think VAR should overturn.
I think Kompany was very fortunate that the ball just went out before he made contact.
I do know that the ball is immaterial if it is in play and it really winds me up when someone says "he wasn't going to get it."
My view is to get out, and play the long game over 10-20 years.
It may not be possible to politically sustain Brexit any other way.
In all seriousness, how do you expect that to play out politically? It's quite likely that various new things will come up that we will want to be part of, whether it's in defence or something else. Will there be a constant campaign accusing the government of betrayal if it so much as thinks of doing anything connected with the EU?
Looked correct to me. Subjective call, ball was already out of play so he went down, not definitive enough to ask ref to overturn.
And any 'worstVAR' would have to include the non use of it when 1-2 people are wrestling someone to the ground and it wasn't given.
BiB - Can you point to where in the laws of the game this is mentioned?
The point was it looked to me like the guy who went down was looking for it because the ball was knocked out of play, not that he was actually taken out. You see that all the time in football, when someone is trying to go round a goalkeeper or defender, realise they've overhit it, so go down. And contact alone does not equal a penalty (eg where someone dangles a leg to make sure they get hit).
I know what you mean - and that does happen - but I don't think that was the case here.
@DavidL - yes, just found that. It was mighty tight though.
Not as obviously, but I think he could see he was not going to get the ball back and acted accordingly when he saw the guy sliding in.
Certainly not so obvious the ref should overturn I think - if he'd have given it I would disagree, but wouldn't think VAR should overturn.
I think Kompany was very fortunate that the ball just went out before he made contact.
I do know that the ball is immaterial if it is in play and it really winds me up when someone says "he wasn't going to get it."
I think that's only relevant insomuch as it affects the person who went down (ie do they look to go down as a result) but certainly is not determinative, no more than a hack to the shins in the area not being a penalty if the hacked person stays on their feet,
We have managed to put ourselves into a situation where all our choices are bad. That includes staying in the European Union. Although membership has BY FAR the best practical outcomes, it is the only option that has been explicitly rejected. We can't pretend the vote didn't happen. The Brexit chaos stems entirely from that contradiction.
Ivan Krastev says that the problem with referendums is that they can't negotiate with each other. We have a conflict between the Brexit referendum and the Good Friday Agreement referendum, and perhaps that's a good reason to return the final say back to the people once the implications of Brexit are clear enough.
I don't think people realise just how bad the Fuck Business option, the Vassal State option and the No Deal We're all Fucked option are. These are the only alternatives to cancelling the whole thing. The denial about what our choices really are is feeding into the instability.
Canada "fucks business", hence Johnson's comment. Businesses that rely on supply chains or regulatory compliance will no longer base themselves in the UK. This includes Airbus, almost all automotive manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, much agriculture and a large part of financial services. Our main industries and more. We're talking millions of jobs at risk. Canada isn't a common market - that's Norway. Canada is the ability to sell widgets without tariffs.
You talk about respecting the Leave vote. How about respecting the Remain vote which was almost as great? We need to respect both. A Norway deal plus Customs Union does that.
The Remain vote lost, tough. Otherwise you may as well have said Major should have respected the Kinnock vote in 1992 or Blair the Howard vote in 2005 and adopted part of their manifestoes
. Norway plus Customs Union leaves the EU, respects the result and enables the country to come together and move on (except from some zealots on both sides).
no less than 92% of Leave supporters believe that immigration from the EU should be limited ‘by introducing an Australian points based system’, a position that is, of course, in direct conflict with the EU’s freedom of movement provisions. Remain voters, in contrast, were not only divided on the issue, but a majority (64%) actually supported the idea too.
Doesn't that just show that 64% of Remainers are clueless as to what they want to remain in?
We have managed to put ourselves into a situation where all our choices are bad. That includes staying in the European Union. Although membership has BY FAR the best practical outcomes, it is the only option that has been explicitly rejected. We can't pretend the vote didn't happen. The Brexit chaos stems entirely from that contradiction.
Ivan gh.
I don'=bility.
Canada "fuc
You on does that.
The Remain vtoes
False analogy. General elections typically last 4 or 5 years then there is a chance for a change. The EU referendum was a once a generation change with no manifesto except to leave the EU. Norway plus Customs Union leaves the EU, respects the result and enables the country to come together and move on (except from some zealots on both sides).
No, correct analogy. The Tories won a majority in 2015 on their manifesto commitment for an EU referendum remember and if Remain want a second referendum they need Labour to have a commitment to one in their manifesto and for Labour to then win the next general election with that manifesto.
The EU referendum was a referendum with two official campaigns, Britain Stronger in Europe and Vote Leave, the latter campaign won and its platform of ending free movement, ending ECJ jurisdiction, regaining money from the EU and doing our own trade deals must therefore be respected. Norway plus Customs Union disrespects the Leave vote and the winning platform of the official Leave campaign and enables nobody to move on but Remainers who refuse to accept they lost in the first place and a handful of upper middle class Leavers who basically want to stay in the EU in all but name.
Indeed both the Tory and Labour Parties committed to leave the Single Market at the 2017 general election and won 80% of the vote between them on that platform
If Remainers want to stay in or return to the EEA and Customs Union then again they need Labour to have manifesto commitments to do that and Labour to win a general election on that platform or get the pro EEA LDs elected instead
My view is to get out, and play the long game over 10-20 years.
It may not be possible to politically sustain Brexit any other way.
In all seriousness, how do you expect that to play out politically? It's quite likely that various new things will come up that we will want to be part of, whether it's in defence or something else. Will there be a constant campaign accusing the government of betrayal if it so much as thinks of doing anything connected with the EU?
Why bother even engaging with you on the point?
You think there can only ever be one answer to that question, and you won’t ever admit to being convinced by anything different.
We have managed to put ourselves into a situation where all our choices are bad. That includes staying in the European Union. Although membership has BY FAR the best practical outcomes, it is the only option that has been explicitly rejected. We can't pretend the vote didn't happen. The Brexit chaos stems entirely from that contradiction.
Ivan Krastev says that the problem with referendums is that they can't negotiate with each other. We have a conflict between the Brexit referendum and the Good Friday Agreement referendum, and perhaps that's a good reason to return the final say back to the people once the implications of Brexit are clear enough.
I don't think people realise just how bad the Fuck Business option, the Vassal State option and the No Deal We're all Fucked option are. These are the only alternatives to cancelling the whole thing. The denial about what our choices really are is feeding into the instability.
Canada "fucks business", hence Johnson's comment. Businesses that rely on supply chains or regulatory compliance will no longer base themselves in the UK. This includes Airbus, almost all automotive manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, much agriculture and a large part of financial services. Our main industries and more. We're talking millions of jobs at risk. Canada isn't a common market - that's Norway. Canada is the ability to sell widgets without tariffs.
You talk about respecting the Leave vote. How about respecting the Remain vote which was almost as great? We need to respect both. A Norway deal plus Customs Union does that.
The Remain vote lost, tough. Otherwise you may as well have said Major should have respected the Kinnock vote in 1992 or Blair the Howard vote in 2005 and adopted part of their manifestoes
False analogy. General elections typically last 4 or 5 years then there is a chance for a change. The EU referendum was a once a generation change with no manifesto except to leave the EU. Norway plus Customs Union leaves the EU, respects the result and enables the country to come together and move on (except from some zealots on both sides).
But, is it even on offer?
If the offer is a choice of 1. Remain, 2. No deal, 3. Detach NI from the UK, I'll go for 2.
We have managed to put ourselves into a situation where all our choices are bad. That includes staying in the European Union. Although membership has BY FAR the best practical outcomes, it is the only option that has been explicitly rejected. We can't pretend the vote didn't happen. The Brexit chaos stems entirely from that contradiction.
Canada "fucks business", hence Johnson's comment. Businesses that rely on supply chains or regulatory compliance will no longer base themselves in the UK. This includes Airbus, almost all automotive manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, much agriculture and a large part of financial services. Our main industries and more. We're talking millions of jobs at risk. Canada isn't a common market - that's Norway. Canada is the ability to sell widgets without tariffs.
You talk about respecting the Leave vote. How about respecting the Remain vote which was almost as great? We need to respect both. A Norway deal plus Customs Union does that.
The Remain vote lost, tough. Otherwise you may as well have said Major should have respected the Kinnock vote in 1992 or Blair the Howard vote in 2005 and adopted part of their manifestoes
. Norway plus Customs Union leaves the EU, respects the result and enables the country to come together and move on (except from some zealots on both sides).
no less than 92% of Leave supporters believe that immigration from the EU should be limited ‘by introducing an Australian points based system’, a position that is, of course, in direct conflict with the EU’s freedom of movement provisions. Remain voters, in contrast, were not only divided on the issue, but a majority (64%) actually supported the idea too.
Doesn't that just show that 64% of Remainers are clueless as to what they want to remain in?
Remain voters were primarily motived by love for the EU concern over economic risks......they also supported controls on immigration - and heck, if the EU and British Politicians can go for cakeism, why not Remain voters?
I don't think people realise just how bad the Fuck Business option, the Vassal State option and the No Deal We're all Fucked option are. These are the only alternatives to cancelling the whole thing. The denial about what our choices really are is feeding into the instability.
want them and qualify.
Canada "fucks business", hence Johnson's comment. Businesses that rely on supply chains or regulatory compliance will no longer base themselves in the UK. This includes Airbus, almost all automotive manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, much agriculture and a large part of financial services. Our main industries and more. We're talking millions of jobs at risk. Canada isn't a common market - that's Norway. Canada is the ability to sell widgets without tariffs.
A Canada deal is the only way to respect the Leave vote and most of the promises the Leave campaign made ie end free movement and control our borders, conduct our own trade deals, reclaim money from the EU and end ECJ jurisdiction over the UK and get a FTA.
A Norway deal technically leaves the EU but in effect fills almost none of the Leave campaign's promises and requires free movement and ECJ jurisdiction and add in a Customs Union too and we cannot do our own trade deals either, WTO terms on the other hand fully respects the Leave vote but means no free trade deal and tariffs on trade with the EU and significant economic damage potentially albeit with no regulatory alignment and no payments to the EU
I agree Canada does satisfy a Leave vote at one level, while Norway means outsourcing your economic and trade policy to a third party. That's sort of acceptable to Norway, but is it's unlike to be so for the UK beyond the short term. The problem with Canada is that it "fucks business".and I'm not convinced Leave voters think losing their jobs and standard of living is a price worth paying. They are hardly embracing the reality on this. Hence Theresa May's difficulties.
Leave voters effectively said 'fuck big business' when they ignored business warnings on the economic risks of Brexit and voted Leave anyway to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration.
Disrespect that and you disrespect democracy, a Canada deal has to at least be tried for a few year's and if we can achieve it it will still 'fuck business' less than WTO terms
Scorched earth is always an option. A poor policy when it's your own earth that you are scorching, I suggest. So I return to my original point. All choices are bad in this situation that we consciously put ourselves into.
I don't think people realise just how bad the Fuck Business option, the Vassal State option and the No Deal We're all Fucked option are. These are the only alternatives to cancelling the whole thing. The denial about what our choices really are is feeding into the instability.
want them and qualify.
C
A Canada deal is the only way to respect the Leave vote and most of the promises the Leave campaign made ie end free movement and control our borders, conduct our own trade deals, reclaim money from the EU and end ECJ jurisdiction over the UK and get a FTA.
A Norway deal technically leaves the EU but in effect fills almost none of the Leave campaign's promises and requires free movement and ECJ jurisdiction and add in a Customs Union too and we cannot do our own trade deals either, WTO terms on the other hand fully respects the Leave vote but means no free trade deal and tariffs on trade with the EU and significant economic damage potentially albeit with no regulatory alignment and no payments to the EU
I agree Canada does satisfy a Leave vote at one level, while Norway means outsourcing your economic and trade policy to a third party. That's sort of acceptable to Norway, but is it's unlike to be so for the UK beyond the short term. The problem with Canada is that it "fucks business".and I'm not convinced Leave voters think losing their jobs and standard of living is a price worth paying. They are hardly embracing the reality on this. Hence Theresa May's difficulties.
Leave voters effectively said 'fuck big business' when they ignored business warnings on the economic risks of Brexit and voted Leave anyway to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration.
Disrespect that and you disrespect democracy, a Canada deal has to at least be tried for a few year's and if we can achieve it it will still 'fuck business' less than WTO terms
Scorched earth is always an option. A poor policy when it's your own earth that you are scorching, I suggest. So I return to my original point. All choices are bad in this situation that we consciously put ourselves into.
A no deal Brexit is an option. But it probably means 2-3 years of economic fallout, followed by flatter growth for 5-10 years before returning to the mean, and unpredictable political fallout both sides of the channel.
In the long term I don’t think it matters at all. But it will chop British politics to bits and lead to a level of change in our economic model.
Mrs May will want all ministers who stay in the government to commit whole-heartedly to her new strategy. If certain Brexiteers hang around though it won’t be because they’ve converted. They will have fingers crossed behind their backs as they swear allegiance thinking: even if we didn’t win today, we fight another day.
I don't think people realise just how bad the Fuck Business option, the Vassal State option and the No Deal We're all Fucked option are. These are the only alternatives to cancelling the whole thing. The denial about what our choices really are is feeding into the instability.
want them and qualify.
Canada "fucks business", hence Johnson's comment. Businesses that rely on supply chains or regulatory compliance will no longer base themselves in the UK. This includes Airbus, almost all automotive manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, much agriculture and a large part of financial services. Our main industries and more. We're talking millions of jobs at risk. Canada isn't a common market - that's Norway. Canada is the ability to sell widgets without tariffs.
A Canada deal is the only
I agree Canada does satisfy a Leave vote at one level, while Norway means outsourcing your economic and trade policy to a third party. That's sort of acceptable to Norway, but is it's unlike to be so for the UK beyond the short term. The problem with Canada is that it "fucks business".and I'm not convinced Leave voters think losing their jobs and standard of living is a price worth paying. They are hardly embracing the reality on this. Hence Theresa May's difficulties.
Leave voters effectively said 'fuck big business' when they ignored business warnings on the economic risks of Brexit and voted Leave anyway to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration.
Disrespect that and you disrespect democracy, a Canada deal has to at least be tried for a few year's and if we can achieve it it will still 'fuck business' less than WTO terms
Scorched earth is always an option. A poor policy when it's your own earth that you are scorching, I suggest. So I return to my original point. All choices are bad in this situation that we consciously put ourselves into.
The voters though made their choice, poor or not and until it has been tried for a few years they cannot decide whether they want to change their mind and maybe return to the single market because of the benefits it brings our economy even if it means free movement and some ECJ jurisdiction and payments to the EU
Mrs May will want all ministers who stay in the government to commit whole-heartedly to her new strategy. If certain Brexiteers hang around though it won’t be because they’ve converted. They will have fingers crossed behind their backs as they swear allegiance thinking: even if we didn’t win today, we fight another day.
Belgium win, Brazil out and it will be all European semi finals regardless of who wins the last 2 quarter finals and absent any World Cup winner of the last 20 years
Mrs May will want all ministers who stay in the government to commit whole-heartedly to her new strategy. If certain Brexiteers hang around though it won’t be because they’ve converted. They will have fingers crossed behind their backs as they swear allegiance thinking: even if we didn’t win today, we fight another day.
Mrs May will want all ministers who stay in the government to commit whole-heartedly to her new strategy. If certain Brexiteers hang around though it won’t be because they’ve converted. They will have fingers crossed behind their backs as they swear allegiance thinking: even if we didn’t win today, we fight another day.
Making it a tremendous waste of time. It would be better if there were resignations.
Given the EU have effectively said her new plans are a non starter why bother? Won't it just fall apart when it goes to Brussels let alone to the parliament and member states?
All over - the second victory for Brussels today?!
Mrs May will want all ministers who stay in the government to commit whole-heartedly to her new strategy. If certain Brexiteers hang around though it won’t be because they’ve converted. They will have fingers crossed behind their backs as they swear allegiance thinking: even if we didn’t win today, we fight another day.
Making it a tremendous waste of time. It would be better if there were resignations.
Given the EU have effectively said her new plans are a non starter why bother? Won't it just fall apart when it goes to Brussels let alone to the parliament and member states?
They could resign on the basis that the government was going in the wrong direction and it was a plan which the EU would reject anyway.
If they subsequently moan, as they are no doubt intending to, that the May plan was a stupid one, they cannot do so without looking foolish since they backed it. And if the EU do reject it outright, as expected, they will look a bit silly since they have endorsed the plan when given a 'agree it or resign' ultimatum.
Ministers have signed up to a plan to create a free trade area for industrial and agricultural goods with the bloc, based on a "common rule book". They also backed a customs model No 10 said would be "business friendly". The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg said the plan, agreed after a 12-hour meeting, would "anger many Tory Brexiteers".
It's another area where VAR changes the game. Without it the ref thinks "well I'm not sure if it was in play, no penalty." Okay, people get upset but he only gets one look at it. But with VAR, it's pretty inexcusable that they didn't check that more closely. It was the end on shot which showed Kompany making contact, with his studs up by the way, which should have led to further inspection.
The EU won’t even agree to this, so what’s the point?
It’s actually a fantastic deal for the EU. They have a large surplus in goods with us, and it protects NI too.
So it’ll come down to theology versus pragmatic economic interest. Barnier will come under pressure from the EU27, not that they’ll ever admit to that.
It's not a question of being handed anything, they're (supposedly) taking it. Big difference.
Now, perhaps they are taking it on the assumption that the EU will reject it, and they can pursue something harder then as May admits defeat in what she wants to do (while May is desperately telling the EU 'You won't get better than this from us, so take it'), or they are simply clueless and out of options, but being handed something suggests they have no choice, when they all do. Resign.
Comments
No I mean that where ever there are German plants in world big volumes of German auto parts are shipped there from Germany. So Merc and BMW have plants in USA, in 2016 German Auto part exports were $5.37 billion to the USA, full tariffs no customs union. German plants in China were supplied with $8.49billion of parts from Germany. But apparently according to you the $4.65 billion of parts form Germany to UK, will cease because of a 21 mile stretch of water.
The biggest threat to industry here is the idiotic big cost customs partnership and Philip Hammond. He is in control of customs here and he needs to make sure it is as smooth as possible.
The Iraq War may have been less than briliant but Blair won the 2001 general elections and the 2005 general elections and got it through Parliament and therefore the 2003 invasion was not anti democratic
The pendulum always does shift eventually but it is up to the losers to shift it sooner rather than later, not the winners. The Leave vote was always going to be disruptive sooner or later if you respected it, otherwise there would have been no point in it for most Leave voters
And any 'worstVAR' would have to include the non use of it when 1-2 people are wrestling someone to the ground and it wasn't given.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/analysis/the-two-poles-of-the-referendum-debate-immigration-and-the-economy/
no less than 92% of Leave supporters believe that immigration from the EU should be limited ‘by introducing an Australian points based system’, a position that is, of course, in direct conflict with the EU’s freedom of movement provisions. Remain voters, in contrast, were not only divided on the issue, but a majority (64%) actually supported the idea too. Although many Remain supporters hold what is seemingly a relatively liberal provision on immigration, this does not necessarily mean that their support for EU membership is rooted in enthusiasm for the Union’s freedom of movement provisions. If anything, the opposite may well sometimes be the case.
https://www.economist.com/bagehots-notebook/2018/07/06/labour-is-no-longer-the-party-of-the-traditional-working-class
The EU referendum was a once a generation change with no manifesto except to leave the EU. Norway plus Customs Union leaves the EU, respects the result and enables the country to come together and move on (except from some zealots on both sides).
Edit - and turns out it is a rule in any case according to DavidL. We can trust him, he's a lawyer.
It may not be possible to politically sustain Brexit any other way.
@DavidL - yes, just found that. It was mighty tight though.
Certainly not so obvious the ref should overturn I think - if he'd have given it I would disagree, but wouldn't think VAR should overturn.
I do know that the ball is immaterial if it is in play and it really winds me up when someone says "he wasn't going to get it."
The EU referendum was a referendum with two official campaigns, Britain Stronger in Europe and Vote Leave, the latter campaign won and its platform of ending free movement, ending ECJ jurisdiction, regaining money from the EU and doing our own trade deals must therefore be respected. Norway plus Customs Union disrespects the Leave vote and the winning platform of the official Leave campaign and enables nobody to move on but Remainers who refuse to accept they lost in the first place and a handful of upper middle class Leavers who basically want to stay in the EU in all but name.
Indeed both the Tory and Labour Parties committed to leave the Single Market at the 2017 general election and won 80% of the vote between them on that platform
If Remainers want to stay in or return to the EEA and Customs Union then again they need Labour to have manifesto commitments to do that and Labour to win a general election on that platform or get the pro EEA LDs elected instead
You think there can only ever be one answer to that question, and you won’t ever admit to being convinced by anything different.
If the offer is a choice of 1. Remain, 2. No deal, 3. Detach NI from the UK, I'll go for 2.
In the long term I don’t think it matters at all. But it will chop British politics to bits and lead to a level of change in our economic model.
Mrs May will want all ministers who stay in the government to commit whole-heartedly to her new strategy. If certain Brexiteers hang around though it won’t be because they’ve converted. They will have fingers crossed behind their backs as they swear allegiance thinking: even if we didn’t win today, we fight another day.
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/gary-gibbon/blogs/will-the-brexiteers-walk-after-crunch-talks-at-chequers
Australasia out
Americas out
Asia now have to get behind Russia!
All over - the second victory for Brussels today?!
If they subsequently moan, as they are no doubt intending to, that the May plan was a stupid one, they cannot do so without looking foolish since they backed it. And if the EU do reject it outright, as expected, they will look a bit silly since they have endorsed the plan when given a 'agree it or resign' ultimatum.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1015324383865384960
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/competition/5614746
Edit: it's disappeared now.
They also backed a customs model No 10 said would be "business friendly".
The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg said the plan, agreed after a 12-hour meeting, would "anger many Tory Brexiteers".
So it’ll come down to theology versus pragmatic economic interest. Barnier will come under pressure from the EU27, not that they’ll ever admit to that.
Now, perhaps they are taking it on the assumption that the EU will reject it, and they can pursue something harder then as May admits defeat in what she wants to do (while May is desperately telling the EU 'You won't get better than this from us, so take it'), or they are simply clueless and out of options, but being handed something suggests they have no choice, when they all do. Resign.
How's that going to work? I thought the EU had rejected all our proposals for sharing any security matters?
https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/1015324836476923904
Theresa deserves to be allowed to fight the next general election.