They are different things. Cameron's answer came later as part of the overall strategy to reduce migration. Merkel's action was taken in order to avert an ongoing emergency at the time, for which no-one else had an answer.
You're not going to get much pro-Merkel sympathy on here. But I also wonder whether history will look back at her decision much more favourably than it is currently seen. I personally think the idea of each country in Europe taking its share of refugees makes a lot of sense.
Just wait until the first Syrian scores a goal for Germany. She has also got a large number of people sewn up to vote CDU.
You don't think that the the facts that the EU has been utterly rubbish at managing non-EU migration and, specifically, migration from Muslim countries and that Germany broke the rules single-handedly then tried to rope in other EU countries to come to her aid have nothing to do with the rise in popularity of such parties?
.
It was an extremely brave decision by Merkel. People seem to have forgotten that, at the time, what was a refugee crisis was threatening to become a humanitarian crisis. While everyone else was turning a blind eye or throwing up their hands in despair, she was the only one who showed a bit of leadership in a crisis situation. Sometimes you have to break rules to save lives.
I'll bet the women and girls sexually harassed / raped by the "refugees" feel very grateful for Merkel's "brave" decision.
What was brave was when she pointed out to the Syrian girl a few weeks earlier that, as is the case and as Germany has now recognised, that Europe cannot take everyone who wants to go there. That is being honest. Even if it is not what people want to hear. Making decisions out of panic and misplaced sentimentality rarely leads to good long-term decision-making.
I suppose all Mexicans are rapists too, aren't they?
No. Nor are all men from the Middle East. But it is undeniable that some of those who Merkel let in have committed sexual crimes. These are facts. Maybe Merkel thought that this was the price you have to pay. It wasn't her paying, though.
And I am old-fashioned enough to think that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens from harm. That does not equate to my mind to letting in without any form of vetting or control a load of young men from countries with a misogynistic approach to women. That is why we have rules to distinguish genuine asylum seekers from other migrants and why countries generally have rules to keep out those with criminal records or of bad character. None of this was done.
Then when crimes happened the reaction of those at the top was to hush them up or tell women not to go out or only go out with male protectors or only go to womens' areas.
It was a dereliction of duty on Merkel's part. It was not thought through. It caused difficult social and political consequences, not just in her country. And Germany is now trying to reverse it.
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
They are different things. Cameron's answer came later as part of the overall strategy to reduce migration. Merkel's action was taken in order to avert an ongoing emergency at the time, for which no-one else had an answer.
You're not going to get much pro-Merkel sympathy on here. But I also wonder whether history will look back at her decision much more favourably than it is currently seen. I personally think the idea of each country in Europe taking its share of refugees makes a lot of sense.
Just wait until the first Syrian scores a goal for Germany. She has also got a large number of people sewn up to vote CDU.
She won’t be in power when they finally get that right.
I'll bet the women and girls sexually harassed / raped by the "refugees" feel very grateful for Merkel's "brave" decision.
What was brave was when she pointed out to the Syrian girl a few weeks earlier that, as is the case and as Germany has now recognised, that Europe cannot take everyone who wants to go there. That is being honest. Even if it is not what people want to hear. Making decisions out of panic and misplaced sentimentality rarely leads to good long-term decision-making.
I suppose all Mexicans are rapists too, aren't they?
No. Nor are all men from the Middle East. But it is undeniable that some of those who Merkel let in have committed sexual crimes. These are facts. Maybe Merkel thought that this was the price you have to pay. It wasn't her paying, though.
And I am old-fashioned enough to think that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens from harm. That does not equate to my mind to letting in without any form of vetting or control a load of young men from countries with a misogynistic approach to women. That is why we have rules to distinguish genuine asylum seekers from other migrants and why countries generally have rules to keep out those with criminal records or of bad character. None of this was done.
Then when crimes happened the reaction of those at the top was to hush them up or tell women not to go out or only go out with male protectors or only go to womens' areas.
It was a dereliction of duty on Merkel's part. It was not thought through. It caused difficult social and political consequences, not just in her country. And Germany is now trying to reverse it.
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
Some of the people let in were not Syrians. They came from all sorts of places under the guise that they were Syrian refugees. Germany has admitted that their vetting was non-existent and that they have let in people they would not normally let in or people who were not refugees or people who were not Syrians.
I'm not aware of the statistics. But I query your assumption that somehow sexual crimes committed by people with no right to be in the country are not to be complained about provided they are statistically in line with those committed by Germans.
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
Wow, you'd have thought bothering to turn up to a crucial vote would be far more important than going to a Trump demo.
She had a pairing arrangement ! How would she know that Tories can never be trusted ? Well, she should have known.
She could not get a "pair" for the demonstration.
Is that how you deal with important moments in your life, by getting someone else to do it?
Anyway, I thought the whole point of maternity leave was to care for your children.
You are trying to wriggle out of the fact that the Chairman of the Tory Party is a reneger. "Pairing" is an understood system - well not for too long it seems the way the Chairman and Chief Whip of the Tory Party has behaved. Despicable !
Wow, you'd have thought bothering to turn up to a crucial vote would be far more important than going to a Trump demo.
She had a pairing arrangement ! How would she know that Tories can never be trusted ? Well, she should have known.
She could not get a "pair" for the demonstration.
Is that how you deal with important moments in your life, by getting someone else to do it?
Anyway, I thought the whole point of maternity leave was to care for your children.
You are trying to wriggle out of the fact that the Chairman of the Tory Party is a reneger. "Pairing" is an understood system - well not for too long it seems the way the Chairman and Chief Whip of the Tory Party has behaved. Despicable !
No, I’m just commenting on Swinson’s apparent priorities.
I'll bet the women and girls sexually harassed / raped by the "refugees" feel very grateful for Merkel's "brave" decision.
What was brave was when she pointed out to the Syrian girl a few weeks earlier that, as is the case and as Germany has now recognised, that Europe cannot take everyone who wants to go there. That is being honest. Even if it is not what people want to hear. Making decisions out of panic and misplaced sentimentality rarely leads to good long-term decision-making.
I suppose all Mexicans are rapists too, aren't they?
No. Nor are all men from the Middle East. But it is undeniable that some of those who Merkel let in have committed sexual crimes. These are facts. Maybe Merkel thought that this was the price you have to pay. It wasn't her paying, though.
And I am old-fashioned enough to think that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens from harm. That does not equate to my mind to letting in without any form of vetting or control a load of young men from countries with a misogynistic approach to women. That is why we have rules to distinguish genuine asylum seekers from other migrants and why countries generally have rules to keep out those with criminal records or of bad character. None of this was done.
Then when crimes happened the reaction of those at the top was to hush them up or tell women not to go out or only go out with male protectors or only go to womens' areas.
It was a dereliction of duty on Merkel's part. It was not thought through. It caused difficult social and political consequences, not just in her country. And Germany is now trying to reverse it.
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
Some of the people let in were not Syrians. They came from all sorts of places under the guise that they were Syrian refugees. Germany has admitted that their vetting was non-existent and that they have let in people they would not normally let in or people who were not refugees or people who were not Syrians.
I'm not aware of the statistics. But I query your assumption that somehow sexual crimes committed by people with no right to be in the country are not to be complained about provided they are statistically in line with those committed by Germans.
I've an idea! How about prosecuting and sentencing people for crimes that actually commit, rather than assuming criminal tendencies based on race or religion?
They are different things. Cameron's answer came later as part of the overall strategy to reduce migration. Merkel's action was taken in order to avert an ongoing emergency at the time, for which no-one else had an answer.
You're not going to get much pro-Merkel sympathy on here. But I also wonder whether history will look back at her decision much more favourably than it is currently seen. I personally think the idea of each country in Europe taking its share of refugees makes a lot of sense.
Just wait until the first Syrian scores a goal for Germany. She has also got a large number of people sewn up to vote CDU.
That might take a while... but I think there's a good chance that the refugees from Syria will turn out to be economically more beneficial than typical refugee groups. Something like 38% have a university degree. If Germany can manage to integrate them into the economy, the economic upside could be significant.
I suppose all Mexicans are rapists too, aren't they?
No. Nor are all men from the Middle East. But it is undeniable that some of those who Merkel let in have committed sexual crimes. These are facts. Maybe Merkel thought that this was the price you have to pay. It wasn't her paying, though.
And I am old-fashioned enough to think that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens from harm. That does not equate to my mind to letting in without any form of vetting or control a load of young men from countries with a misogynistic approach to women. That is why we have rules to distinguish genuine asylum seekers from other migrants and why countries generally have rules to keep out those with criminal records or of bad character. None of this was done.
Then when crimes happened the reaction of those at the top was to hush them up or tell women not to go out or only go out with male protectors or only go to womens' areas.
It was a dereliction of duty on Merkel's part. It was not thought through. It caused difficult social and political consequences, not just in her country. And Germany is now trying to reverse it.
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
Some of the people let in were not Syrians. They came from all sorts of places under the guise that they were Syrian refugees. Germany has admitted that their vetting was non-existent and that they have let in people they would not normally let in or people who were not refugees or people who were not Syrians.
I'm not aware of the statistics. But I query your assumption that somehow sexual crimes committed by people with no right to be in the country are not to be complained about provided they are statistically in line with those committed by Germans.
You conveniently avoided to answer the question. When a million people come in [ Syrians or Afghans or whatever ], they will not all be saints. They will include all sorts.
BTW, many Syrians coming into Germany were Christians too. There were a large number of Christians in that country. Accepted a big majority were Muslims.
They are different things. Cameron's answer came later as part of the overall strategy to reduce migration. Merkel's action was taken in order to avert an ongoing emergency at the time, for which no-one else had an answer.
You're not going to get much pro-Merkel sympathy on here. But I also wonder whether history will look back at her decision much more favourably than it is currently seen. I personally think the idea of each country in Europe taking its share of refugees makes a lot of sense.
It might well do, but if they don't want to do it it is hard and not particularly fair to force them. Personally the biggest issue I have with Merkel is my recollection that her much vaunted lack of desire to act unilaterally went out the window when it suited her, and came back when it didn't.
I suppose all Mexicans are rapists too, aren't they?
No. Nor are all men from the Middle East. But it is undeniable that some of those who Merkel let in have committed sexual crimes. These are facts. Maybe Merkel thought that this was the price you have to pay. It wasn't her paying, though.
And I am old-fashioned enough to think that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens from harm. That does not equate to my mind to letting in without any form of vetting or control a load of young men from countries with a misogynistic approach to women. That is why we have rules to distinguish genuine asylum seekers from other migrants and why countries generally have rules to keep out those with criminal records or of bad character. None of this was done.
Then when crimes happened the reaction of those at the top was to hush them up or tell women not to go out or only go out with male protectors or only go to womens' areas.
It was a dereliction of duty on Merkel's part. It was not thought through. It caused difficult social and political consequences, not just in her country. And Germany is now trying to reverse it.
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
Some of the people let in were not Syrians. They came from all sorts of places under the guise that they were Syrian refugees. Germany has admitted that their vetting was non-existent and that they have let in people they would not normally let in or people who were not refugees or people who were not Syrians.
I'm not aware of the statistics. But I query your assumption that somehow sexual crimes committed by people with no right to be in the country are not to be complained about provided they are statistically in line with those committed by Germans.
You conveniently avoided to answer the question. When a million people come in [ Syrians or Afghans or whatever ], they will not all be saints. They will include all sorts.
BTW, many Syrians coming into Germany were Christians too. There were a large number of Christians in that country. Accepted a big majority were Muslims.
And you don’t think it’s irresponsible not trying to stop the less saintly from coming in?
They are different things. Cameron's answer came later as part of the overall strategy to reduce migration. Merkel's action was taken in order to avert an ongoing emergency at the time, for which no-one else had an answer.
You're not going to get much pro-Merkel sympathy on here. But I also wonder whether history will look back at her decision much more favourably than it is currently seen. I personally think the idea of each country in Europe taking its share of refugees makes a lot of sense.
Just wait until the first Syrian scores a goal for Germany. She has also got a large number of people sewn up to vote CDU.
That might take a while... but I think there's a good chance that the refugees from Syria will turn out to be economically more beneficial than typical refugee groups. Something like 38% have a university degree. If Germany can manage to integrate them into the economy, the economic upside could be significant.
The German economic miracle of the 60's had a lot to do Turkish workers at that time. The Syrians will be no different. An influx of people always boosts growth -as it did in the UK and Ireland in the noughties. We did not hear much about "immigration" then. Only when things went sour.
I've an idea! How about prosecuting and sentencing people for crimes that actually commit, rather than assuming criminal tendencies based on race or religion?
You don't think that the the facts that the EU has been utterly rubbish at managing non-EU migration and, specifically, migration from Muslim countries and that Germany broke the rules single-handedly then tried to rope in other EU countries to come to her aid have nothing to do with the rise in popularity of such parties?
.
It was an extremely brave decision by Merkel. People seem to have forgotten that, at the time, what was a refugee crisis was threatening to become a humanitarian crisis. While everyone else was turning a blind eye or throwing up their hands in despair, she was the only one who showed a bit of leadership in a crisis situation. Sometimes you have to break rules to save lives.
I'll bet the women and girls sexually harassed / raped by the "refugees" feel very grateful for Merkel's "brave" decision.
What was brave was when she pointed out
I suppose all Mexicans are rapists too, aren't they?
No. Nor are all men from the Middle East. But it is undeniable that some of those who Merkel let in have committed sexual crimes. These are facts. Maybe Merkel thought that this was the price you have to pay. It wasn't her paying, though.
And I am old-fashioned enough to think that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens from harm. That does not equate to my mind to letting in without any form of vetting or control a load of young men from countries with a misogynistic approach to women. That is why we have rules to distinguish genuine asylum seekers from other migrants and why countries generally have rules to keep out those with criminal records or of bad character. None of this was done.
Then when crimes happened the reaction of those at the top was to hush them up or tell women not to go out or only go out with male protectors or only go to womens' areas.
It was a dereliction of duty on Merkel's part. It was not thought through. It caused difficult social and political consequences, not just in her country. And Germany is now trying to reverse it.
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
Good luck in getting that data.....
We do know that crime in Germany is at a 30 year low:
I'll bet the women and girls sexually harassed / raped by the "refugees" feel very grateful for Merkel's "brave" decision.
What was brave was when she pointed out to the Syrian girl a few weeks earlier that, as is the case and as Germany has now recognised, that Europe cannot take everyone who wants to go there. That is being honest. Even if it is not what people want to hear. Making decisions out of panic and misplaced sentimentality rarely leads to good long-term decision-making.
I suppose all Mexicans are rapists too, aren't they?
And I am old-fashioned enough to think that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens from harm. That does not equate to my mind to letting in without any form of vetting or control a load of young men from countries with a misogynistic approach to women.
So how would you deal with holidaymakers from, say, Saudi? Or XXX, or YYY?
You have set yourself an unattainably high bar there for keeping out the furriners.
Holiday makers go home. If they commit crimes while here they should be prosecuted. And deported at the end of the sentence and barred from returning (for serious crimes such as rape, sexual harassment etc).
For people who want to come and live here, yes I admit, I do want a high bar. I see no reason why we should expect women here to put up with behaviour that, were it done by white men, leads to "MeToo" badges and campaigns and what-not, just because those coming here are foreign and it's part of their culture. When determining who should be able to live here, their willingness to integrate and live by our rules should be one of the criteria, hard as it may be to determine.
Otherwise you get the ridiculousness of what is happening in Germany - where they have had to give out leaflets to men to tell them not to grab women's breasts etc or in Denmark where they are having to enforce integration on people under the threat of fines and withdrawal of benefits. Maybe - just maybe - if people do not want to share Danish values or live like Danish people they shouldn't be living in Denmark in the first place. And maybe - just maybe - the Danish government should consider such factors before letting such people into the country.
I'd assume whips have to be ruthless, it's part of the job, but also need to have the judgement to know when it is needed, and weigh up the consequences of being caught being ruthless. It's like running a criminal organisation, and so being untrustworthy, but still needing to be trusted on some things as even in a criminal organisation you need to work with other people somehow, even fear alone won't do it.
You don't think that the the facts that the EU has been utterly rubbish at managing non-EU migration and, specifically, migration from Muslim countries and that Germany broke the rules single-handedly then tried to rope in other EU countries to come to her aid have nothing to do with the rise in popularity of such parties?
This is entirely backwards. The optional step that Merkel took was to say that Germany would take refugees rather than sending them back to the EU country they entered Germany from, even though they weren't technically obliged to.
It was an extremely brave decision by Merkel. People seem to have forgotten that, at the time, what was a refugee crisis was threatening to become a humanitarian crisis. While everyone else was turning a blind eye or throwing up their hands in despair, she was the only one who showed a bit of leadership in a crisis situation. Sometimes you have to break rules to save lives.
OR...Cameron showed leadership, in funding assistance in the region. So no, not the only one. (Oh, and Cameron's answer was the right one.)
You don't think that the the facts that the EU has been utterly rubbish at managing non-EU migration and, specifically, migration from Muslim countries and that Germany broke the rules single-handedly then tried to rope in other EU countries to come to her aid have nothing to do with the rise in popularity of such parties?
.
It was an extremely brave decision by Merkel. People seem to have forgotten that, at the time, what was a refugee crisis was threatening to become a humanitarian crisis. While everyone else was turning a blind eye or throwing up their hands in despair, she was the only one who showed a bit of leadership in a crisis situation. Sometimes you have to break rules to save lives.
I'll bet the women and girls sexually harassed / raped by the "refugees" feel very grateful for Merkel's "brave" decision.
What was brave was when she pointed out
I suppose all Mexicans are rapists too, aren't they?
No. Nor are all men from the Middle East. But it is undeniable that some of those who Merkel let in have committed sexual crimes. These are facts. Maybe Merkel thought that this was the price you have to pay. It wasn't her paying, though.
And I am old-fashioned enough to think that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens from harm. That does not equate to my mind to letting in without any form of vetting or control a load of young men from countries with a misogynistic approach to women. That is why we have rules to distinguish genuine asylum seekers from other migrants and why countries generally have rules to keep out those with criminal records or of bad character. None of this was done.
Then when crimes happened the reaction of those at the top was to hush them up or tell women not to go out or only go out with male protectors or only go to womens' areas.
It was a dereliction of duty on Merkel's part. It was not thought through. It caused difficult social and political consequences, not just in her country. And Germany is now trying to reverse it.
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
Good luck in getting that data.....
We do know that crime in Germany is at a 30 year low:
Out of curiosity what is there to stop the Tories from naming Soubry as the person Swindon is paired with? Nominally at least she's a Tory who should be voting with the government.
I'll bet the women and girls sexually harassed / raped by the "refugees" feel very grateful for Merkel's "brave" decision.
What was brave was when she pointed out to the Syrian girl a few weeks earlier that, as is the case and as Germany has now recognised, that Europe cannot take everyone who wants to go there. That is being honest. Even if it is not what people want to hear. Making decisions out of panic and misplaced sentimentality rarely leads to good long-term decision-making.
I suppose all Mexicans are rapists too, aren't they?
And I am old-fashioned enough to think that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens from harm. That does not equate to my mind to letting in without any form of vetting or control a load of young men from countries with a misogynistic approach to women.
So how would you deal with holidaymakers from, say, Saudi? Or XXX, or YYY?
You have set yourself an unattainably high bar there for keeping out the furriners.
Holiday makers go home. If they commit crimes while here they should be prosecuted. And deported at the end of the sentence and barred from returning (for serious crimes such as rape, sexual harassment etc).
For people who want to come and live here, yes I admit, I do want a high bar. I see no reason why we should expect women here to put up with behaviour that, were it done by white men, leads to "MeToo" badges and campaigns and what-not, just because those coming here are foreign and it's part of their culture. When determining who should be able to live here, their willingness to integrate and live by our rules should be one of the criteria, hard as it may be to determine.
Otherwise you get the ridiculousness of what is happening in Germany - where they have had to give out leaflets to men to tell them not to grab women's breasts etc or in Denmark where they are having to enforce integration on people under the threat of fines and withdrawal of benefits. Maybe - just maybe - if people do not want to share Danish values or live like Danish people they shouldn't be living in Denmark in the first place. And maybe - just maybe - the Danish government should consider such factors before letting such people into the country.
I'd assume whips have to be ruthless, it's part of the job, but also need to have the judgement to know when it is needed, and weigh up the consequences of being caught being ruthless. It's like running a criminal organisation, and so being untrustworthy, but still needing to be trusted on some things as even in a criminal organisation you need to work with other people somehow, even fear alone won't do it.
This is one of those Westminster stories. He breached the first rule: 'don't get caught'. If May had any political nous she'd fire h- oh.
I wonder at this JRM and Boris as favourites situation. Whether someone likes Boris or not what he is not is consistent or reliable in his positions. By his own words he was willing to back a statement that he accepted Chequers and only on reflection changed his mind. Now, changing one's mind is not inherently unreasonable, but JRM appears much more focused on what he wants, so could he rely on Boris if the latter took over? Sure, I don't think the MPs get JRM to the final two either, but who knows what Boris would do once he got in?
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
Some of the people let in were not Syrians. They came from all sorts of places under the guise that they were Syrian refugees. Germany has admitted that their vetting was non-existent and that they have let in people they would not normally let in or people who were not refugees or people who were not Syrians.
I'm not aware of the statistics. But I query your assumption that somehow sexual crimes committed by people with no right to be in the country are not to be complained about provided they are statistically in line with those committed by Germans.
You conveniently avoided to answer the question. When a million people come in [ Syrians or Afghans or whatever ], they will not all be saints. They will include all sorts.
BTW, many Syrians coming into Germany were Christians too. There were a large number of Christians in that country. Accepted a big majority were Muslims.
I didn't avoid the question. I told you that I didn't know the answer.
The point you are missing is that before letting people into a country you should know who they are, where they come from, what their status is, their skills, what they bring and then decide whether you want them or not. None of that was done by Germany. And when she decided it was all too much for her Merkel tried to dump the problems on others.
To let in a mass of people from the Middle East at a time of increased terrorism risk when IS had specifically stated that it was going to smuggle in IS people under cover of being refugees and when we know that some of those involved in the Paris attacks and the youth who tried to bomb a Putney train were indeed IS operatives and used the refugee route as a way in was hugely irresponsible.
Why do people have a problem with countries making a choice about who they will let into their country so that they can try, as far as possible, keep out those who bring no benefits or who will actively harm them?
No-deal Brexit would harm EU countries as well as UK, warns IMF Growth across Europe forecast to fall if UK adopted WTO rules, with Britain worst affected
I suppose all Mexicans are rapists too, aren't they?
No. Nor are all men from the Middle East. But it is undeniable that some of those who Merkel let in have committed sexual crimes. These are facts. Maybe Merkel thought that this was the price you have to pay. It wasn't her paying, though.
And I am old-fashioned enough to think that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens from harm. That does not equate to my mind to letting in without any form of vetting or control a load of young men from countries with a misogynistic approach to women. That is why we have rules to distinguish genuine asylum seekers from other migrants and why countries generally have rules to keep out those with criminal records or of bad character. None of this was done.
Then when crimes happened the reaction of those at the top was to hush them up or tell women not to go out or only go out with male protectors or only go to womens' areas.
It was a dereliction of duty on Merkel's part. It was not thought through. It caused difficult social and political consequences, not just in her country. And Germany is now trying to reverse it.
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
Some of the people let in were not Syrians. They came from all sorts of places under the guise that they were Syrian refugees. Germany has admitted that their vetting was non-existent and that they have let in people they would not normally let in or people who were not refugees or people who were not Syrians.
I'm not aware of the statistics. But I query your assumption that somehow sexual crimes committed by people with no right to be in the country are not to be complained about provided they are statistically in line with those committed by Germans.
No-deal Brexit would harm EU countries as well as UK, warns IMF Growth across Europe forecast to fall if UK adopted WTO rules, with Britain worst affected
The unbolded bit is why hard deal leavers think the EU will cave, the bolded bit is why the EU think we will cave. The fact those two cancel each other is why no deal leavers recognise its all working well for them as the EU see no reason to cave, and May cannot cave.
Mr. Surby, 'the Syrians' aren't the only, or the majority, of the migrants that Germany's accepted.
When Mark Urban did a breakdown of demographics in a very good article for the BBC he found the largest group were simply economic migrants taking advantage of Frau Merkel's daftness to get into Europe.
You don't think that the the facts that the EU has been utterly rubbish at managing non-EU migration and, specifically, migration from Muslim countries and that Germany broke the rules single-handedly then tried to rope in other EU countries to come to her aid have nothing to do with the rise in popularity of such parties?
This is entirely backwards. The optional step that Merkel took was to say that Germany would take refugees rather than sending them back to the EU country they entered Germany from, even though they weren't technically obliged to.
It was an extremely brave decision by Merkel. People seem to have forgotten that, at the time, what was a refugee crisis was threatening to become a humanitarian crisis. While everyone else was turning a blind eye or throwing up their hands in despair, she was the only one who showed a bit of leadership in a crisis situation. Sometimes you have to break rules to save lives.
OR...Cameron showed leadership, in funding assistance in the region. So no, not the only one. (Oh, and Cameron's answer was the right one.)
They are different things. Cameron's answer came later as part of the overall strategy to reduce migration. Merkel's action was taken in order to avert an ongoing emergency at the time, for which no-one else had an answer.
It was the Balkan countries which sealed their borders which did the whole of Europe a favour.
Still not enough evidence for Jezza and the cult....
I don't recall any comment from Corbyn on the matter for quite some time. I know at one point he agreed it was highly likely to be Russia, but seemed to row back on that at others.
Certainly my father, a born again Corbynite, doesn't think it was the Russians.
They are different things. Cameron's answer came later as part of the overall strategy to reduce migration. Merkel's action was taken in order to avert an ongoing emergency at the time, for which no-one else had an answer.
You're not going to get much pro-Merkel sympathy on here. But I also wonder whether history will look back at her decision much more favourably than it is currently seen. I personally think the idea of each country in Europe taking its share of refugees makes a lot of sense.
Just wait until the first Syrian scores a goal for Germany. She has also got a large number of people sewn up to vote CDU.
Anna Soubry MP ✔ @Anna_Soubry If true this is appalling and those responsible must resign. If we cannot behave with honour we are nothing.
Robert Peston ✔ @Peston I was told by well-placed source that a Tory backbencher was texted by chief whip with instructions to break pair on Tuesday night. “That is an order not a request” was how text was retold to me. In event shrewd MP consulted pairing whip and honoured pair. But... https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/1019821107833135104 …
2:49 PM - Jul 19, 2018 1,191 685 people are talking about this
No-deal Brexit would harm EU countries as well as UK, warns IMF Growth across Europe forecast to fall if UK adopted WTO rules, with Britain worst affected
The unbolded bit is why hard deal leavers think the EU will cave, the bolded bit is why the EU think we will cave. The fact those two cancel each other is why no deal leavers recognise its all working well for them as the EU see no reason to cave, and May cannot cave.
Unless I'm misreading it, these numbers are forgone growth by 2030. This doesn't appear to be the Brexitageddon we've been promised.
ITV’s Robert Peston has more on the Conservative pair-breaking scandal.
Robert Peston ✔ @Peston A Tory source confirms @JulianSmithUK did instruct Tory MPs who had “short-term” pairs to break them (though apparently he didn’t succeed), in a frantic attempt to maximize government vote on trade bill (hence text from @JulianSmithUK I quoted in earlier tweet). But...
2:42 PM - Jul 19, 2018 103 78 people are talking about this
As shambolic as the government already is, they might as well just get him to fall on his sword already.
Still not enough evidence for Jezza and the cult....
I don't recall any comment from Corbyn on the matter for quite some time. I know at one point he agreed it was highly likely to be Russia, but seemed to row back on that at others.
Certainly my father, a born again Corbynite, doesn't think it was the Russians.
Still not enough evidence for Jezza and the cult....
I don't recall any comment from Corbyn on the matter for quite some time. I know at one point he agreed it was highly likely to be Russia, but seemed to row back on that at others.
Certainly my father, a born again Corbynite, doesn't think it was the Russians.
Jezza has consistently done a Trump when it comes to Russia....yes, but no, but yes, but well likely, but not certain, could be others, we need to wait for even more evidence, etc etc etc.
I'd assume whips have to be ruthless, it's part of the job, but also need to have the judgement to know when it is needed, and weigh up the consequences of being caught being ruthless. It's like running a criminal organisation, and so being untrustworthy, but still needing to be trusted on some things as even in a criminal organisation you need to work with other people somehow, even fear alone won't do it.
Macchiavelli put it correctly. One should always keep one's word, unless it becomes necessary to break it. There was no need for the Chief Whip to break his word in this case.
Still not enough evidence for Jezza and the cult....
I don't recall any comment from Corbyn on the matter for quite some time. I know at one point he agreed it was highly likely to be Russia, but seemed to row back on that at others.
Certainly my father, a born again Corbynite, doesn't think it was the Russians.
Who does he think did it?
The more "sensible" of the tin foil hat conspiracy stuff is that it was a rogue Russian agent getting their own back on some long held grudge for the double agent treason or linked to criminality.
Still not enough evidence for Jezza and the cult....
I don't recall any comment from Corbyn on the matter for quite some time. I know at one point he agreed it was highly likely to be Russia, but seemed to row back on that at others.
Certainly my father, a born again Corbynite, doesn't think it was the Russians.
Who does he think did it?
I dared not ask, given his recent penchant for Rothschild conspiracies and rants about Israel, among other matters. Never saw that coming 10 years ago, either he's changed or I was a lot less observant of his views in my early 20s!
I'd assume whips have to be ruthless, it's part of the job, but also need to have the judgement to know when it is needed, and weigh up the consequences of being caught being ruthless. It's like running a criminal organisation, and so being untrustworthy, but still needing to be trusted on some things as even in a criminal organisation you need to work with other people somehow, even fear alone won't do it.
Macchiavelli put it correctly. One should always keep one's word, unless it becomes necessary to break it. There was no need for the Chief Whip to break his word in this case.
Question: do we believe the chief whip decided to cheat simply on his own initiative? At absolutely no point did anyone from Number 10 contact the chief whip and idly muse if perhaps, maybe, cheating might be a thing that could happen?
Mr. Surby, 'the Syrians' aren't the only, or the majority, of the migrants that Germany's accepted.
When Mark Urban did a breakdown of demographics in a very good article for the BBC he found the largest group were simply economic migrants taking advantage of Frau Merkel's daftness to get into Europe.
Amazing Ruth can find time to chat shit on Twitter yet can't make a statement about the prossession of bigoted and mysoginistic councillors the SCons have nor the dodgy donations the party has been accepting.
No-deal Brexit would harm EU countries as well as UK, warns IMF Growth across Europe forecast to fall if UK adopted WTO rules, with Britain worst affected
The unbolded bit is why hard deal leavers think the EU will cave, the bolded bit is why the EU think we will cave. The fact those two cancel each other is why no deal leavers recognise its all working well for them as the EU see no reason to cave, and May cannot cave.
The problem with the theory that the EU will cave is the timing. When do they expect it to happen? The EU can afford to take it to the wire, and in that case the only practical thing that could happen would be that the EU could offer an extension of Article 50.
Pairing is dead, and the Tory psychosis about saving May killed it.
An already terrifyingly tight parliamentary arithmetic just got tighter.
Well apparently pairing does get broken from time to time anyway, but so blatantly and dishonestly hear that it is hard to see how in the short to medium term anyone could trust it.
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
Some of the people let in were not Syrians. They came from all sorts of places under the guise that they were Syrian refugees. Germany has admitted that their vetting was non-existent and that they have let in people they would not normally let in or people who were not refugees or people who were not Syrians.
I'm not aware of the statistics. But I query your assumption that somehow sexual crimes committed by people with no right to be in the country are not to be complained about provided they are statistically in line with those committed by Germans.
You conveniently avoided to answer the question. When a million people come in [ Syrians or Afghans or whatever ], they will not all be saints. They will include all sorts.
BTW, many Syrians coming into Germany were Christians too. There were a large number of Christians in that country. Accepted a big majority were Muslims.
I didn't avoid the question. I told you that I didn't know the answer.
The point you are missing is that before letting people into a country you should know who they are, where they come from, what their status is, their skills, what they bring and then decide whether you want them or not. None of that was done by Germany. And when she decided it was all too much for her Merkel tried to dump the problems on others.
To let in a mass of people from the Middle East at a time of increased terrorism risk when IS had specifically stated that it was going to smuggle in IS people under cover of being refugees and when we know that some of those involved in the Paris attacks and the youth who tried to bomb a Putney train were indeed IS operatives and used the refugee route as a way in was hugely irresponsible.
Why do people have a problem with countries making a choice about who they will let into their country so that they can try, as far as possible, keep out those who bring no benefits or who will actively harm them?
I don't have a problem with countries making a choice about who they will let into their country. The point you insist on missing, though, is that it was an emergency situation. Tens of thousands of migrants were piling up against the borders of the Balkan states, and this was threatening to become a humanitarian disaster. Without fast action, people would have started dying. Merkel was brave enough to take that action, even though she must have known it would have a political cost.
The best illustration of this unfamiliarity, in fact, was the other batsman dismissed in the same over as Bairstow. According to Cricviz, when he was out leg-before to a leg break, Joe Root had only faced three balls of left-arm wristspin in his entire career, and been dismissed twice. Yadav, in the heat of an international T20 and an ODI, is the only meaningful experience Root has of it….
Amazing Ruth can find time to chat shit on Twitter yet can't make a statement about the prossession of bigoted and mysoginistic councillors the SCons have nor the dodgy donations the party has been accepting.
No-deal Brexit would harm EU countries as well as UK, warns IMF Growth across Europe forecast to fall if UK adopted WTO rules, with Britain worst affected
The unbolded bit is why hard deal leavers think the EU will cave, the bolded bit is why the EU think we will cave. The fact those two cancel each other is why no deal leavers recognise its all working well for them as the EU see no reason to cave, and May cannot cave.
The problem with the theory that the EU will cave is the timing. When do they expect it to happen? The EU can afford to take it to the wire, and in that case the only practical thing that could happen would be that the EU could offer an extension of Article 50.
The theory someone pronounced this morning was in September as EU heads of government finally put pressure onthe commission to dial it back a notch. Doesn't seem hugely likely to me though.
In the Novichok investigation, there's rumours of suspects being known.
"The Metropolitan Police, who are leading the investigation, declined to comment. Security minister Ben Wallace wrote on Twitter: “I think this story belongs in the ‘ill informed and wild speculation folder’.”
That must mean the BBC has its expensive helicopter ready to go.
Still not enough evidence for Jezza and the cult....
I don't recall any comment from Corbyn on the matter for quite some time. I know at one point he agreed it was highly likely to be Russia, but seemed to row back on that at others.
Certainly my father, a born again Corbynite, doesn't think it was the Russians.
No-deal Brexit would harm EU countries as well as UK, warns IMF Growth across Europe forecast to fall if UK adopted WTO rules, with Britain worst affected
The unbolded bit is why hard deal leavers think the EU will cave, the bolded bit is why the EU think we will cave. The fact those two cancel each other is why no deal leavers recognise its all working well for them as the EU see no reason to cave, and May cannot cave.
Unless I'm misreading it, these numbers are forgone growth by 2030. This doesn't appear to be the Brexitageddon we've been promised.
Replying to my own post, the shame. For people who like fact checking, yes, this is in fact the delta between the baseline model and the various scenarios outlined in the IMF report.
Report is here. For the time poor but still nerdy, the relevant bit is page 6.
The theory someone pronounced this morning was in September as EU heads of government finally put pressure onthe commission to dial it back a notch. Doesn't seem hugely likely to me though.
I just don't see why. To me the best option for the EU is just to continue to run down the clock and let the political chaos that May leaves in her wake filter through the UK body politic. The EU knows well enough to never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
The theory someone pronounced this morning was in September as EU heads of government finally put pressure onthe commission to dial it back a notch. Doesn't seem hugely likely to me though.
I just don't see why. To me the best option for the EU is just to continue to run down the clock and let the political chaos that May leaves in her wake filter through the UK body politic. The EU knows well enough to never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
I don't understand what point you are making. I said I don't believe the EU is going to cave. That's part of why no deal is so likely.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
I don't understand what point you are making. I said I don't believe the EU is going to cave. That's part of why no deal is so likely.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just sticking my oar in, as it were. I don't see any reason for the EU to cave now. I mean they have May on the ropes and haven't even had to throw a punch.
The theory someone pronounced this morning was in September as EU heads of government finally put pressure onthe commission to dial it back a notch. Doesn't seem hugely likely to me though.
I just don't see why. To me the best option for the EU is just to continue to run down the clock and let the political chaos that May leaves in her wake filter through the UK body politic. The EU knows well enough to never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
We shouldn't rule out the possibility that May knows what she's doing and her aim is No Brexit and to conduct an ERG-ectomy on the Tory party.
Still not enough evidence for Jezza and the cult....
I don't recall any comment from Corbyn on the matter for quite some time. I know at one point he agreed it was highly likely to be Russia, but seemed to row back on that at others.
Certainly my father, a born again Corbynite, doesn't think it was the Russians.
Who does he think did it?
I dared not ask, given his recent penchant for Rothschild conspiracies and rants about Israel, among other matters. Never saw that coming 10 years ago, either he's changed or I was a lot less observant of his views in my early 20s!
I think there is a medical explanation - as part of the ageing process we become less good at self-censorship
The theory someone pronounced this morning was in September as EU heads of government finally put pressure onthe commission to dial it back a notch. Doesn't seem hugely likely to me though.
I just don't see why. To me the best option for the EU is just to continue to run down the clock and let the political chaos that May leaves in her wake filter through the UK body politic. The EU knows well enough to never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
We shouldn't rule out the possibility that May knows what she's doing and her aim is No Brexit and to conduct an ERG-ectomy on the Tory party.
I think we can rule it out. The actions of her government to survive day to day are suitably desperate and incompetent at times that it is not plausible she could so competently pull off such a plot.
The theory someone pronounced this morning was in September as EU heads of government finally put pressure onthe commission to dial it back a notch. Doesn't seem hugely likely to me though.
I just don't see why. To me the best option for the EU is just to continue to run down the clock and let the political chaos that May leaves in her wake filter through the UK body politic. The EU knows well enough to never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
We shouldn't rule out the possibility that May knows what she's doing and her aim is No Brexit and to conduct an ERG-ectomy on the Tory party.
That might be what she intends, but she does not have a good record of executing cunning plans.
The theory someone pronounced this morning was in September as EU heads of government finally put pressure onthe commission to dial it back a notch. Doesn't seem hugely likely to me though.
I just don't see why. To me the best option for the EU is just to continue to run down the clock and let the political chaos that May leaves in her wake filter through the UK body politic. The EU knows well enough to never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
Are we the EU's enemy? Not a soon to be nearest neighbour and ally?
Well if that's the case time to prepare for the hardest of exits and termination of defence, intelligence and other military cooperation. We don't do that with enemies.
And to think that Trump was lambasted for calling the EU a foe but according to Mr Cocque here they're not just a foe but an outright enemy.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
I don't understand what point you are making. I said I don't believe the EU is going to cave. That's part of why no deal is so likely.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just sticking my oar in, as it were. I don't see any reason for the EU to cave now. I mean they have May on the ropes and haven't even had to throw a punch.
The theory someone pronounced this morning was in September as EU heads of government finally put pressure onthe commission to dial it back a notch. Doesn't seem hugely likely to me though.
I just don't see why. To me the best option for the EU is just to continue to run down the clock and let the political chaos that May leaves in her wake filter through the UK body politic. The EU knows well enough to never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
Are we the EU's enemy? Not a soon to be nearest neighbour and ally?
Well if that's the case time to prepare for the hardest of exits and termination of defence, intelligence and other military cooperation. We don't do that with enemies.
And to think that Trump was lambasted for calling the EU a foe but according to Mr Cocque here they're not just a foe but an outright enemy.
I don't think it's likely that the EU would get a PM who was better disposed towards them than May.
The theory someone pronounced this morning was in September as EU heads of government finally put pressure onthe commission to dial it back a notch. Doesn't seem hugely likely to me though.
I just don't see why. To me the best option for the EU is just to continue to run down the clock and let the political chaos that May leaves in her wake filter through the UK body politic. The EU knows well enough to never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
Are we the EU's enemy? Not a soon to be nearest neighbour and ally?
Well if that's the case time to prepare for the hardest of exits and termination of defence, intelligence and other military cooperation. We don't do that with enemies.
And to think that Trump was lambasted for calling the EU a foe but according to Mr Cocque here they're not just a foe but an outright enemy.
Unfortunately for us all those in the EU who see the UK as an enemy, and especially those in the UK who see the EU as an enemy, are the ones driving the show.
The theory someone pronounced this morning was in September as EU heads of government finally put pressure onthe commission to dial it back a notch. Doesn't seem hugely likely to me though.
I just don't see why. To me the best option for the EU is just to continue to run down the clock and let the political chaos that May leaves in her wake filter through the UK body politic. The EU knows well enough to never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
Are we the EU's enemy? Not a soon to be nearest neighbour and ally?
Well if that's the case time to prepare for the hardest of exits and termination of defence, intelligence and other military cooperation. We don't do that with enemies.
And to think that Trump was lambasted for calling the EU a foe but according to Mr Cocque here they're not just a foe but an outright enemy.
Yep. Time for you to get your old CCF boots out, Phil.
Unfortunately for us all those in the EU who see the UK as an enemy, and especially those in the UK who see the EU as an enemy, are the ones driving the show.
Just for the record, "never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake" is a famous Napoleonic quip that I was alluding to. I'm not idiotic enough to believe they're actually our enemy.
Though for the purposes of negotiation, they are our *opponent* and are wiping the floor with us.
Still not enough evidence for Jezza and the cult....
I don't recall any comment from Corbyn on the matter for quite some time. I know at one point he agreed it was highly likely to be Russia, but seemed to row back on that at others.
Certainly my father, a born again Corbynite, doesn't think it was the Russians.
Who does he think did it?
Mossad did it.
And threw in some random collatoral death, for good measure.
But there will always be people who take the less than 1% likely outcome to their heart.
Is there any statistic which says that the Syrians committed proportionately far greater number of rapes than other people living in Germany ? I mean statistically significant.
Some of the people let in were not Syrians. Thes.
You conveniently avoided to answer the question. When a million people come in [ Syrians or Afghans or whatever ], they will not all be saints. They will include all sorts.
BTW, many Syrians coming into Germany were Christians too. There were a large number of Christians in that country. Accepted a big majority were Muslims.
I didn't avoid the question. I told you that I didn't know the answer.
The point you are missing is that before letting people into a country you should know who they are, where they come from, what their status is, their skills, what they bring and then decide whether you want them or not. None of that was done by Germany. And when she decided it was all too much for her Merkel tried to dump the problems on others.
To let in a mass of people from the Middle East at a time of increased terrorism risk when IS had specifically stated that it was going to smuggle in IS people under cover of being refugees and when we know that some of those involved in the Paris attacks and the youth who tried to bomb a Putney train were indeed IS operatives and used the refugee route as a way in was hugely irresponsible.
Why do people have a problem with countries making a choice about who they will let into their country so that they can try, as far as possible, keep out those who bring no benefits or who will actively harm them?
The only way to vet and assess asylum claims is in a holding centre, either onshore or offshore. By their very nature genuine refugees are often travelling undocumented and surreptitiously. They are never going to have all supporting documents and proofs on arrival.
The sheer numbers and rapidity involved in the 2015 crisis made this impossible, but it could and should be done now. There does remain a major issue of returning undocumented citizens to their homelands though.
Still not enough evidence for Jezza and the cult....
I don't recall any comment from Corbyn on the matter for quite some time. I know at one point he agreed it was highly likely to be Russia, but seemed to row back on that at others.
Certainly my father, a born again Corbynite, doesn't think it was the Russians.
Who does he think did it?
The more "sensible" of the tin foil hat conspiracy stuff is that it was a rogue Russian agent getting their own back on some long held grudge for the double agent treason or linked to criminality.
It's hard to believe it didn't come from Russia and from people who must have access to state facilities. In some ways it would be rather more alarming for it not to be an state conspiracy. It would suggest no-one is fully in charge.
Still not enough evidence for Jezza and the cult....
I don't recall any comment from Corbyn on the matter for quite some time. I know at one point he agreed it was highly likely to be Russia, but seemed to row back on that at others.
Certainly my father, a born again Corbynite, doesn't think it was the Russians.
Who does he think did it?
The more "sensible" of the tin foil hat conspiracy stuff is that it was a rogue Russian agent getting their own back on some long held grudge for the double agent treason or linked to criminality.
It's hard to believe it didn't come from Russia and from people who must have access to state facilities. In some ways it would be rather more alarming for it not to be an state conspiracy. It would suggest no-one is fully in charge.
In the current circumstances that kind of thing doesn't seem plausible. In the 90s perhaps, but not now.
Unfortunately for us all those in the EU who see the UK as an enemy, and especially those in the UK who see the EU as an enemy, are the ones driving the show.
Just for the record, "never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake" is a famous Napoleonic quip that I was alluding to. I'm not idiotic enough to believe they're actually our enemy.
Though for the purposes of negotiation, they are our *opponent* and are wiping the floor with us.
But if there is ultimately no deal, then our *opponents* will be party to a legendarily bad failure of negotiatations - that will also leave their nose on the floor. And be case-studied for decades on How To Fuck Up Negotiations on an Epic Scale.
A good negotiation gets your side a respectable win - whilst delivering the deal. Any old twat can get no deal.
Unfortunately for us all those in the EU who see the UK as an enemy, and especially those in the UK who see the EU as an enemy, are the ones driving the show.
Just for the record, "never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake" is a famous Napoleonic quip that I was alluding to. I'm not idiotic enough to believe they're actually our enemy.
Though for the purposes of negotiation, they are our *opponent* and are wiping the floor with us.
Not necessarily. Only if they believe the UK won't walk away
Unfortunately for us all those in the EU who see the UK as an enemy, and especially those in the UK who see the EU as an enemy, are the ones driving the show.
Just for the record, "never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake" is a famous Napoleonic quip that I was alluding to. I'm not idiotic enough to believe they're actually our enemy.
Though for the purposes of negotiation, they are our *opponent* and are wiping the floor with us.
Not necessarily. Only if they believe the UK won't walk away
The UK isn't a coherent single actor capable of "walking away" and a No Deal scenario is not sustainable. All that would happen is that the political forces within the UK that conspired to bring it about would face their Waterloo.
The theory someone pronounced this morning was in September as EU heads of government finally put pressure onthe commission to dial it back a notch. Doesn't seem hugely likely to me though.
I just don't see why. To me the best option for the EU is just to continue to run down the clock and let the political chaos that May leaves in her wake filter through the UK body politic. The EU knows well enough to never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake.
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
Are we the EU's enemy? Not a soon to be nearest neighbour and ally?
Well if that's the case time to prepare for the hardest of exits and termination of defence, intelligence and other military cooperation. We don't do that with enemies.
And to think that Trump was lambasted for calling the EU a foe but according to Mr Cocque here they're not just a foe but an outright enemy.
Unfortunately for us all those in the EU who see the UK as an enemy, and especially those in the UK who see the EU as an enemy, are the ones driving the show.
Yes. We're now in an era of self-fulfilling mutual hostility. Unless a second referendum prevents it, the current generation of Tories, and their press, that was so instrumental in achieving this climate, will be held responsible for the results by later generations for decades to come.
Unfortunately for us all those in the EU who see the UK as an enemy, and especially those in the UK who see the EU as an enemy, are the ones driving the show.
Just for the record, "never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake" is a famous Napoleonic quip that I was alluding to. I'm not idiotic enough to believe they're actually our enemy.
Though for the purposes of negotiation, they are our *opponent* and are wiping the floor with us.
But if there is ultimately no deal, then our *opponents* will be party to a legendarily bad failure of negotiatations - that will also leave their nose on the floor. And be case-studied for decades on How To Fuck Up Negotiations on an Epic Scale.
A good negotiation gets your side a respectable win - whilst delivering the deal. Any old twat can get no deal.
I am not 100% sure the EU sees things in Daily Mail-type terms of win/lose. They presumably see things in terms of rules and treaty obligations adhered to or not.
Comments
I'm not aware of the statistics. But I query your assumption that somehow sexual crimes committed by people with no right to be in the country are not to be complained about provided they are statistically in line with those committed by Germans.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/crime-spike-in-germany-puts-pressure-on-immigration-policy
Getting no sympathy from this Tory.
BTW, many Syrians coming into Germany were Christians too. There were a large number of Christians in that country. Accepted a big majority were Muslims.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44884113
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-crime-rate-migration-antisemitism-horst-seehofer-a8343226.html
For people who want to come and live here, yes I admit, I do want a high bar. I see no reason why we should expect women here to put up with behaviour that, were it done by white men, leads to "MeToo" badges and campaigns and what-not, just because those coming here are foreign and it's part of their culture. When determining who should be able to live here, their willingness to integrate and live by our rules should be one of the criteria, hard as it may be to determine.
Otherwise you get the ridiculousness of what is happening in Germany - where they have had to give out leaflets to men to tell them not to grab women's breasts etc or in Denmark where they are having to enforce integration on people under the threat of fines and withdrawal of benefits. Maybe - just maybe - if people do not want to share Danish values or live like Danish people they shouldn't be living in Denmark in the first place. And maybe - just maybe - the Danish government should consider such factors before letting such people into the country.
The point you are missing is that before letting people into a country you should know who they are, where they come from, what their status is, their skills, what they bring and then decide whether you want them or not. None of that was done by Germany. And when she decided it was all too much for her Merkel tried to dump the problems on others.
To let in a mass of people from the Middle East at a time of increased terrorism risk when IS had specifically stated that it was going to smuggle in IS people under cover of being refugees and when we know that some of those involved in the Paris attacks and the youth who tried to bomb a Putney train were indeed IS operatives and used the refugee route as a way in was hugely irresponsible.
Why do people have a problem with countries making a choice about who they will let into their country so that they can try, as far as possible, keep out those who bring no benefits or who will actively harm them?
No-deal Brexit would harm EU countries as well as UK, warns IMF
Growth across Europe forecast to fall if UK adopted WTO rules, with Britain worst affected
The above is an analysis of a German Govt commissioned report on analysis of the statistics on migrant crime in Germany.
Edit: opps something has gone wrong. Not techy enough to fix
search "bloomberg Germany Must Come to Terms With Refugee Crime"
When Mark Urban did a breakdown of demographics in a very good article for the BBC he found the largest group were simply economic migrants taking advantage of Frau Merkel's daftness to get into Europe.
Certainly my father, a born again Corbynite, doesn't think it was the Russians.
This is from the Conservative MP Anna Soubry.
Anna Soubry MP
✔
@Anna_Soubry
If true this is appalling and those responsible must resign. If we cannot behave with honour we are nothing.
Robert Peston
✔
@Peston
I was told by well-placed source that a Tory backbencher was texted by chief whip with instructions to break pair on Tuesday night. “That is an order not a request” was how text was retold to me. In event shrewd MP consulted pairing whip and honoured pair. But... https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/1019821107833135104 …
2:49 PM - Jul 19, 2018
1,191
685 people are talking about this
An already terrifyingly tight parliamentary arithmetic just got tighter.
Shredded WheatSky are doing the business again.http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/24126241/osman-samiuddin-rarity-left-arm-wristspinner
The best illustration of this unfamiliarity, in fact, was the other batsman dismissed in the same over as Bairstow. According to Cricviz, when he was out leg-before to a leg break, Joe Root had only faced three balls of left-arm wristspin in his entire career, and been dismissed twice. Yadav, in the heat of an international T20 and an ODI, is the only meaningful experience Root has of it….
Good to see that Root has since worked him out.
"The Metropolitan Police, who are leading the investigation, declined to comment.
Security minister Ben Wallace wrote on Twitter: “I think this story belongs in the ‘ill informed and wild speculation folder’.”
That must mean the BBC has its expensive helicopter ready to go.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/836746/Jeremy-Corbyn-Theresa-May-parliament-vote-pairing-Brexit
But I guess he did agree to do it in the end.
Report is here. For the time poor but still nerdy, the relevant bit is page 6.
https://tinyurl.com/yacr9q6p
You think things are febrile and desperate now, with 9 months until the cliff edge? Just imagine how things are going to be with six months, or three months to go.
All the EU needs to do is wait.
Any hope that the EU is going to suddenly take pity on May in her infinite stupidity is, I suspect, very wishful thinking.
https://www.ft.com/content/aac0112e-790c-11e7-a3e8-60495fe6ca71
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1019894487605227520?s=21
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/1019963478357004292
Classy whataboutery stuff from Clive Lewis.
Well if that's the case time to prepare for the hardest of exits and termination of defence, intelligence and other military cooperation. We don't do that with enemies.
And to think that Trump was lambasted for calling the EU a foe but according to Mr Cocque here they're not just a foe but an outright enemy.
Though for the purposes of negotiation, they are our *opponent* and are wiping the floor with us.
But there will always be people who take the less than 1% likely outcome to their heart.
Sadly, they still get to vote....
The sheer numbers and rapidity involved in the 2015 crisis made this impossible, but it could and should be done now. There does remain a major issue of returning undocumented citizens to their homelands though.
A good negotiation gets your side a respectable win - whilst delivering the deal. Any old twat can get no deal.
There's no way your side can win.