The Sun, and many Brexiteers on here will still find a way of blaming the EU
And they would be right. Such an extreme and unlikely scenario could only ever come to pass if the EU were being complete arseholes. It won't of course.
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence ...
... Indeed no hard evidence from you.
Many people died due to the following but who has died due to Brexit? Yet you think it's the "gravest crisis since the war"? Graver than all of the following?
Suez Falklands Iraq wars The Troubles post 9/11 terrorism
Your religion is blinding you.
How could anyone have died due to Brexit? It hasn't happened yet
But it's the "gravest crisis since the war" apparently? Or was that a Pinocchio lie?
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence ...
... Indeed no hard evidence from you.
Many people died due to the following but who has died due to Brexit? Yet you think it's the "gravest crisis since the war"? Graver than all of the following?
Suez Falklands Iraq wars The Troubles post 9/11 terrorism
Your religion is blinding you.
I remember ... lived through.... all those....... and I don’t recall the depth of feeling on either side matching Brexit. Maybe it’s because we didn’t have social media then, of course! Nor did any of them touch the being of the nation like Brexit does.
The Troubles were, for many, in a different country.
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence ...
... Indeed no hard evidence from you.
Many people died due to the following but who has died due to Brexit? Yet you think it's the "gravest crisis since the war"? Graver than all of the following?
Suez Falklands Iraq wars The Troubles post 9/11 terrorism
Your religion is blinding you.
How could anyone have died due to Brexit? It hasn't happened yet
But it's the "gravest crisis since the war" apparently? Or was that a Pinocchio lie?
I made the statement. It can't be a lie, as it is an opinion, not a fact.
Trident is a 51-49 issue so how many votes is it really going to move. Also, anybody intending to vote for Corbyn knows they are going to be getting de facto nuclear disarmament anyway with him.
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence ...
... Indeed no hard evidence from you.
Many people died due to the following but who has died due to Brexit? Yet you think it's the "gravest crisis since the war"? Graver than all of the following?
Suez Falklands Iraq wars The Troubles post 9/11 terrorism
Your religion is blinding you.
I remember ... lived through.... all those....... and I don’t recall the depth of feeling on either side matching Brexit. Maybe it’s because we didn’t have social media then, of course! Nor did any of them touch the being of the nation like Brexit does.
The Troubles were, for many, in a different country.
Not if you were living in the Aldershot/Pirbright/Guildford area (I wasn't born, but my dad used to drink in those pubs which were attacked).
Mr. Ace, a problem with numbers like that is it doesn't indicate depth of feeling, and that is what determines without something alters turnout or shifts votes.
Trident is a 51-49 issue so how many votes is it really going to move. Also, anybody intending to vote for Corbyn knows they are going to be getting de facto nuclear disarmament anyway with him.
We could have such a nice Navy without Trident...
But that would mean forfeiting our ability to nuke the French. It's a tough choice.
If she does pull off a reasonable deal, then the Tories might get through this after all.
Just then need to pivot away from brexit onto domestic issues.
"Under the plan in the making, the EU would get assurances that the emergency Irish border fix would be indefinite, while Britain would get its way in having all of the United Kingdom - rather than just Northern Ireland - stay in a customs union with the bloc should the border ‘backstop’ be triggered."
This is the key para, and again involves May telling the bigots from NI to sod off. To be honest, I hope she does. The spectacle of the DUP tail wagging the dog has to end. An ethno-nationalist hard-right-Loyalist shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of decent dealmaking.
TGOHF likes their politics, few others do.
Why do you think the DUP will oppose that?
Ditto - surely if it's accurate it covers their red line about treating the UK as a whole.
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence ...
... Indeed no hard evidence from you.
Many people died due to the following but who has died due to Brexit? Yet you think it's the "gravest crisis since the war"? Graver than all of the following?
Suez Falklands Iraq wars The Troubles post 9/11 terrorism
Your religion is blinding you.
How could anyone have died due to Brexit? It hasn't happened yet
But it's the "gravest crisis since the war" apparently? Or was that a Pinocchio lie?
Er, what? If you discover there's a bomb under your chair that's about to go off, that situation is a crisis, but nobody's been hurt yet.
Maybe you could try arguing that the effects of Brexit, when it actually occurs, won't be that bad? I'm not sure this "pretend not to understand the concept of causality" tactic you've settled on is going to pay off.
Tories unchanged on 42% from GE17 but Labour down 4% to 36% and LDs up 2% to 9%, giving a net swing of 2% from Labour to the Tories which would give May a small overall majority
If she does pull off a reasonable deal, then the Tories might get through this after all.
Just then need to pivot away from brexit onto domestic issues.
"Sources in Brussels say the devil is in the detail."
You don't say.
"tricky to get past DUP..." is probably an understatement" - and what happens if it's too 'tricky'? A GE.
I reckon the numbers are such that if every Tory is on board, she can afford to lose the DUP with the smattering of rebels expected elsewhere.
If the ERG are against, it hardly matters what the DUP do. A counting exercise first and foremost.
Depends how against the DUP are. If the DUP view this as a confidence issue then yes it matters what they do.
The issue is not necessarily the DUP. It is the 'UK to concede that backstop cannot be time-limited'. That will doom any deal May tries to execute. It will be all too easy (and true) to say that it is a deliberate ploy to make sure we never can actually leave.
As before, Leavers are now putting their hopes in Barnier continuing to be an unreasonable little prick. Ireland may like the all-UK backstop because it gets them off the hook they crafted for themselves, but Barnier has always hated it, because it basically offers backdoor UK access into the SM without respecting the four 'freedoms' (inverted commas necessary when saying that!). Olly Robbins plan all along was to use the backstop to achieve backdoor SM access and Barnier knows it.
So I will expect that Barnier will insist that if the backstop is executed the UK will have to observe FOM and pay money which will make it impossible for May to pass off - not that it will be possible anyway.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
Given that the Kavanaugh vote is now likely to be Sunday (thanks to a Republican Senator's prior wedding engagement), how many more stories like this, from witnesses the FBI have studiously ignored, might emerge and/or get noticed ? https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates Several former Yale students who claim to have information regarding the alleged incident with Ramirez or about Kavanaugh’s behavior at Yale said that they had not been contacted by the F.B.I. Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”...
And as @ydoethur might tell you (?), one should not doubt the word of a theological historian...
The Sun, and many Brexiteers on here will still find a way of blaming the EU
Who else would be to blame? The UK has argued for preparation for a no-deal Brexit, but the Commission has sought to ban it (not that its working - work is going on.
What this will do is make people reconsider Spain and think about Turkey or the US instead.
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence ...
... Indeed no hard evidence from you.
Many people died due to the following but who has died due to Brexit? Yet you think it's the "gravest crisis since the war"? Graver than all of the following?
Suez Falklands Iraq wars The Troubles post 9/11 terrorism
Your religion is blinding you.
I remember ... lived through.... all those....... and I don’t recall the depth of feeling on either side matching Brexit. Maybe it’s because we didn’t have social media then, of course! Nor did any of them touch the being of the nation like Brexit does.
The Troubles were, for many, in a different country.
Not if you were living in the Aldershot/Pirbright/Guildford area (I wasn't born, but my dad used to drink in those pubs which were attacked).
For the many, not the few. As someone said. Same applies, of course, in Birmingham, the City of London and Warrington.
Any hostility was directed at a definable minority. It wasn’t, as now, right across the country, and across communities.
Trident is a 51-49 issue so how many votes is it really going to move. Also, anybody intending to vote for Corbyn knows they are going to be getting de facto nuclear disarmament anyway with him.
We could have such a nice Navy without Trident...
I thought the whole idea of armed forces was that they should be nasty, though ?
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence ...
... Indeed no hard evidence from you.
Many people died due to the following but who has died due to Brexit? Yet you think it's the "gravest crisis since the war"? Graver than all of the following?
Suez Falklands Iraq wars The Troubles post 9/11 terrorism
Your religion is blinding you.
It's an interesting point. The Falklands and Iraq, put bluntly, didn't affect me personally one bit. The same applies to the vast majority of the population and businesses. Brexit by contrast will affect everyone in a multitude of ways. Yet people died in those wars and nothing surely is more important for a nation than the wars you fight. I guess ultimately it's apples and oranges and a false comparison. They are all important.
Iraq did have a big fallout on politics and diplomacy, just as Brexit is doing.
Off-topic, I feel like the Kavanaugh saga is helping the GOP more than Dems. Opinions on his confirmation are splitting very much along partisan lines, so it's probably not going to change anyone's mind on who to vote for. On the other hand, it's also energising both sides- but since the Dems probably started out much more energised than the GOP anyway, that's a net negative for them.
If she does pull off a reasonable deal, then the Tories might get through this after all.
Just then need to pivot away from brexit onto domestic issues.
"Sources in Brussels say the devil is in the detail."
You don't say.
"tricky to get past DUP..." is probably an understatement" - and what happens if it's too 'tricky'? A GE.
I reckon the numbers are such that if every Tory is on board, she can afford to lose the DUP with the smattering of rebels expected elsewhere.
If the ERG are against, it hardly matters what the DUP do. A counting exercise first and foremost.
Depends how against the DUP are. If the DUP view this as a confidence issue then yes it matters what they do.
The issue is not necessarily the DUP. It is the 'UK to concede that backstop cannot be time-limited'. That will doom any deal May tries to execute. It will be all too easy (and true) to say that it is a deliberate ploy to make sure we never can actually leave.
As before, Leavers are now putting their hopes in Barnier continuing to be an unreasonable little prick. Ireland may like the all-UK backstop because it gets them off the hook they crafted for themselves, but Barnier has always hated it, because it basically offers backdoor UK access into the SM without respecting the four 'freedoms' (inverted commas necessary when saying that!). Olly Robbins plan all along was to use the backstop to achieve backdoor SM access and Barnier knows it.
So I will expect that Barnier will insist that if the backstop is executed the UK will have to observe FOM and pay money which will make it impossible for May to pass off - not that it will be possible anyway.
Given the backstop is mainly a means to get a transition period we will be effectively in the single market and customs union for its duration anyway until any trade deal is agreed, March will just be technical Brexit only, with a transition little will change for its duration.
Technically it would be possible to create a FTA that ends free movement and replaces it with work permits and effectively stays in the Customs Union eventually
The IFS are nothing more than a leftist front organisation now. It's a joke.
Lower corp tax has seen a huge rise in corp tax receipts.
Not to mention other receipts from NI, IT , VAT etc due to the economy being boosted.
Scotland has raised tax rates and seen a fall in revenue - not rocket science.
Would be most interested to see a link that proves revenue in Scotland has fallen since income tax rates increased in April of this year. You do have one, right?
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Off-topic, I feel like the Kavanaugh saga is helping the GOP more than Dems. Opinions on his confirmation are splitting very much along partisan lines, so it's probably not going to change anyone's mind on who to vote for. On the other hand, it's also energising both sides- but since the Dems probably started out much more energised than the GOP anyway, that's a net negative for them.
I doubt it makes the slightest difference either way, the Democrats take the House regardless, the Senate is a toss up.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed though that may boost Democratic turnout regardless
If she does pull off a reasonable deal, then the Tories might get through this after all.
Just then need to pivot away from brexit onto domestic issues.
"Sources in Brussels say the devil is in the detail."
You don't say.
"tricky to get past DUP..." is probably an understatement" - and what happens if it's too 'tricky'? A GE.
I reckon the numbers are such that if every Tory is on board, she can afford to lose the DUP with the smattering of rebels expected elsewhere.
If the ERG are against, it hardly matters what the DUP do. A counting exercise first and foremost.
Depends how against the DUP are. If the DUP view this as a confidence issue then yes it matters what they do.
Kangarooed
Given the backstop is mainly a means to get a transition period we will be effectively in the single market and customs union for its duration anyway until any trade deal is agreed, March will just be technical Brexit only, with a transition little will change for its duration.
Technically it would be possible to create a FTA that ends free movement and replaces it with work permits and effectively stays in the Customs Union eventually
Well said and I think that is something like what we will end up with. Within the work permits regime, you could have regional visas – e.g. London visas which allow free movement to the capital, where it is popular. You would only be able to work if your primary place of employment and residence was within the GLA jurisdiction.
Andy_Cooke said: » show previous quotes Easy: none of the ladder would fit in the shed. Because if you stopped in the shed, there wouldn't be a shed to fit into.
A 5m ladder weighing maybe 7-10kg, plus a person, weighing a nominal 70 kg, travelling at a velocity of 1/3rd c (1 times ten to the 8 metres per second) would have a kinetic energy of gamma (1.06066)-times-vee-squared (1 times ten to the sixteenth)-times-mass (80kg) = 8.49 times ten to the 17 joules.
This is about equivalent in energy to 200 megatonnes of TNT, or about four times the destructive potential of the TsarBomba. As soon as you brake to a halt in the shed, you dissipate all that kinetic energy and your shed, ladder, you, your garden, house, village, and a decent chunk of the country in which you're standing is destroyed in an explosion far larger than any made by humans in history.
That is, assuming you get into your shed, considering the speed at which you're moving through the air - fast enough that every molecule of air impacting you has the energy equivalent of a hand grenade going off.
And, of course, you could have got all of your ladder into your shed easily at slow speeds, as 5m is smaller than 10m.
If, however, the question had been miswritten the other way around and it was a 10m ladder into a 5m shed, it still would never have fit (for the same reason, only the doubled mass leads to doubled kinetic energy and a 400 megatonne explosion, and, to add insult to injury, at no point would the ladder have fit into your shed, as the Lorentz contraction at one-third of c is merely 0.942809, meaning that even if you could simply go through the shed without slowing down (and bringing the ladder to the shed's frame of reference), it would have been no smaller than 9.428 metres per second.
Can I just say that this is the sort of answer I read PB for.
Well then, to elaborate further, the Lorentz contraction for a factor of 2 (10m -> 5m) implies a velocity of 0.866c or about 260,000,000 metres per second. This implies a kinetic energy level of about 0.5*80 *2.6*2.6*10^16 = 2.7x10^18 Joules or 660 million tonnes of TNT. As Andy_cooke pointed out, the Tsar Bomba nuclear device = 50 megatonnes
I may have dropped a decimal in there somewhere...
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Sounds absolutely ideal.
However, regrettably, I think you are guilty of gigantic dollops of supposition.
I realise it is getting late in Australia so maybe have a quiet glass of wine while you think it over.
Off-topic, I feel like the Kavanaugh saga is helping the GOP more than Dems. Opinions on his confirmation are splitting very much along partisan lines, so it's probably not going to change anyone's mind on who to vote for. On the other hand, it's also energising both sides- but since the Dems probably started out much more energised than the GOP anyway, that's a net negative for them.
I doubt it makes the slightest difference either way, the Democrats take the House regardless, the Senate is a toss up.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed though that may boost Democratic turnout regardless
538 only gives the dems a 3/4 chance of taking the House. Still favoured, but that's too close for comfort.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It's a fudge to get rid of the backstop nonsense without the EU losing face. It will never be implemented, and in fact will be soon forgotten.
Well said and I think that is something like what we will end up with. Within the work permits regime, you could have regional visas – e.g. London visas which allow free movement to the capital, where it is popular. You would only be able to work if your primary place of employment and residence was within the GLA jurisdiction.
Does a regional visa work in a small country? I can sort of understand a country like Australia doing such things, but it wouldn't be difficult to cheat in the UK.
If she does pull off a reasonable deal, then the Tories might get through this after all.
Just then need to pivot away from brexit onto domestic issues.
"Under the plan in the making, the EU would get assurances that the emergency Irish border fix would be indefinite, while Britain would get its way in having all of the United Kingdom - rather than just Northern Ireland - stay in a customs union with the bloc should the border ‘backstop’ be triggered."
This is the key para, and again involves May telling the bigots from NI to sod off. To be honest, I hope she does. The spectacle of the DUP tail wagging the dog has to end. An ethno-nationalist hard-right-Loyalist shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of decent dealmaking.
TGOHF likes their politics, few others do.
Why do you think the DUP will oppose that?
Ditto - surely if it's accurate it covers their red line about treating the UK as a whole.
Yes, sorry. I misread the original article. An all-UK backstop is far preferable. A good update.
Well said and I think that is something like what we will end up with. Within the work permits regime, you could have regional visas – e.g. London visas which allow free movement to the capital, where it is popular. You would only be able to work if your primary place of employment and residence was within the GLA jurisdiction.
Does a regional visa work in a small country? I can sort of understand a country like Australia doing such things, but it wouldn't be difficult to cheat in the UK.
It works in Canada despite many centres of population being close to provincial borders. There is no reason why it couldn't work in London. If you employ someone who does not qualify, you are breaking the law. Simple as that.
It works in Canada despite many centres of population being close to provincial borders. There is no reason why it couldn't work in London. If you employ someone who does not qualify, you are breaking the law. Simple as that.
How are you going to enforce it when it would be so easy to cheat?
Off-topic, I feel like the Kavanaugh saga is helping the GOP more than Dems. Opinions on his confirmation are splitting very much along partisan lines, so it's probably not going to change anyone's mind on who to vote for. On the other hand, it's also energising both sides- but since the Dems probably started out much more energised than the GOP anyway, that's a net negative for them.
I doubt it makes the slightest difference either way, the Democrats take the House regardless, the Senate is a toss up.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed though that may boost Democratic turnout regardless
538 only gives the dems a 3/4 chance of taking the House. Still favoured, but that's too close for comfort.
Not really, according to the Yougov model the Dems will match the 30 gains they had in 2006 which was the last time they took the House
If she does pull off a reasonable deal, then the Tories might get through this after all.
Just then need to pivot away from brexit onto domestic issues.
"Sources in Brussels say the devil is in the detail."
You don't say.
"tricky to get past DUP..." is probably an understatement" - and what happens if it's too 'tricky'? A GE.
I reckon the numbers are such that if every Tory is on board, she can afford to lose the DUP with the smattering of rebels expected elsewhere.
If the ERG are against, it hardly matters what the DUP do. A counting exercise first and foremost.
Depends how against the DUP are. If the DUP view this as a confidence issue then yes it matters what they do.
The issue is not necessarily the DUP. It is the 'UK to concede that backstop cannot be time-limited'. That will doom any deal May tries to execute. It will be all too easy (and true) to say that it is a deliberate ploy to make sure we never can actually leave.
As before, Leavers are now putting their hopes in Barnier continuing to be an unreasonable little prick. Ireland may like the all-UK backstop because it gets them off the hook they crafted for themselves, but Barnier has always hated it, because it basically offers backdoor UK access into the SM without respecting the four 'freedoms' (inverted commas necessary when saying that!). Olly Robbins plan all along was to use the backstop to achieve backdoor SM access and Barnier knows it.
So I will expect that Barnier will insist that if the backstop is executed the UK will have to observe FOM and pay money which will make it impossible for May to pass off - not that it will be possible anyway.
May's announcements over the last few weeks on adopting the Migration Advisory Council's changes to end FOM after the transition surely makes never-ending FOM impossible politically?
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Work permits between N Ireland and the Republic will not create a hard border, tariffs or their equivalents will
If she does pull off a reasonable deal, then the Tories might get through this after all.
Just then need to pivot away from brexit onto domestic issues.
"Sources in Brussels say the devil is in the detail."
You don't say.
"tricky to get past DUP..." is probably an understatement" - and what happens if it's too 'tricky'? A GE.
I reckon the numbers are such that if every Tory is on board, she can afford to lose the DUP with the smattering of rebels expected elsewhere.
If the ERG are against, it hardly matters what the DUP do. A counting exercise first and foremost.
Depends how against the DUP are. If the DUP view this as a confidence issue then yes it matters what they do.
Kangarooed
Given the backstop is mainly a means to get a transition period we will be effectively in the single market and customs union for its duration anyway until any trade deal is agreed, March will just be technical Brexit only, with a transition little will change for its duration.
Technically it would be possible to create a FTA that ends free movement and replaces it with work permits and effectively stays in the Customs Union eventually
Well said and I think that is something like what we will end up with. Within the work permits regime, you could have regional visas – e.g. London visas which allow free movement to the capital, where it is popular. You would only be able to work if your primary place of employment and residence was within the GLA jurisdiction.
I agree work permits can be flexible based on where workers are most needed
I agree with Mr. Pedley: twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1048170759930171392
Trident is a 51-49 issue so how many votes is it really going to move. Also, anybody intending to vote for Corbyn knows they are going to be getting de facto nuclear disarmament anyway with him.
We could have such a nice Navy without Trident...
But that would mean forfeiting our ability to nuke the French. It's a tough choice.
Not an issue. Cancel Brexit and subsume us into Greater Europe and then we will be Northern France and rather than nuking the cheese eating surrender monkeys our fellow Europeans, we can use the French nukes for Trump or Putin.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Maybe not good to suggest a poster is not paying attention
However, I understand your point but if this is the deal I would expect it to be approved fairly easily in the HOC
I agree with Mr. Pedley: twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1048170759930171392
Trident is a 51-49 issue so how many votes is it really going to move. Also, anybody intending to vote for Corbyn knows they are going to be getting de facto nuclear disarmament anyway with him.
We could have such a nice Navy without Trident...
But that would mean forfeiting our ability to nuke the French. It's a tough choice.
Not an issue. Cancel Brexit and subsume us into Greater Europe and then we will be Northern France and rather than nuking the cheese eating surrender monkeys our fellow Europeans, we can use the French nukes for Trump or Putin.
It works in Canada despite many centres of population being close to provincial borders. There is no reason why it couldn't work in London. If you employ someone who does not qualify, you are breaking the law. Simple as that.
How are you going to enforce it when it would be so easy to cheat?
Why is it any more easy to cheat than hiring illegal workers currently?
Off-topic, I feel like the Kavanaugh saga is helping the GOP more than Dems. Opinions on his confirmation are splitting very much along partisan lines, so it's probably not going to change anyone's mind on who to vote for. On the other hand, it's also energising both sides- but since the Dems probably started out much more energised than the GOP anyway, that's a net negative for them.
I doubt it makes the slightest difference either way, the Democrats take the House regardless, the Senate is a toss up.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed though that may boost Democratic turnout regardless
538 only gives the dems a 3/4 chance of taking the House. Still favoured, but that's too close for comfort.
Not really, according to the Yougov model the Dems will match the 30 gains they had in 2006 which was the last time they took the House
Okay, but you've said that in a very misleading way (presumably deliberately? Why, HYFUD, why must you always obfuscate?), because in 2006, the total seats were 233-202, whereas Yougov is predicting 224-211.
Anyway, 538 is actually giving a similar average (+33 seats), but if what you care about is the %chance that the dems will take the house, then the variance is important too, not just the average. And in fact even the Yougov model is giving a margin of error of 12 seats, which would be enough for the GOP to retrain control.
I agree with Mr. Pedley: twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1048170759930171392
Trident is a 51-49 issue so how many votes is it really going to move. Also, anybody intending to vote for Corbyn knows they are going to be getting de facto nuclear disarmament anyway with him.
We could have such a nice Navy without Trident...
But that would mean forfeiting our ability to nuke the French. It's a tough choice.
Not an issue. Cancel Brexit and subsume us into Greater Europe and then we will be Northern France and rather than nuking the cheese eating surrender monkeys our fellow Europeans, we can use the French nukes for Trump or Putin.
It works in Canada despite many centres of population being close to provincial borders. There is no reason why it couldn't work in London. If you employ someone who does not qualify, you are breaking the law. Simple as that.
How are you going to enforce it when it would be so easy to cheat?
Why is it any more easy to cheat than hiring illegal workers currently?
Why introduce any new visa regime that we know would be essentially unenforceable?
We need workable controlled immigration plans, otherwise we will be back to square one in short order.
Good news folks, Iain Martin reckons we'll be arguing about Brexit for another ten years, since it will take that long to complete the process.
Happy days!
By then Chuka Umunna may be PM and will keep us in the single market anyway. Ten more years would match the 18 years the Tories were last in power when they lost to Labour
Trident is a 51-49 issue so how many votes is it really going to move. Also, anybody intending to vote for Corbyn knows they are going to be getting de facto nuclear disarmament anyway with him.
We could have such a nice Navy without Trident...
We wouldn’t though.
The money would be used for education, health or policing, or tax cuts, instead.
Off-topic, I feel like the Kavanaugh saga is helping the GOP more than Dems. Opinions on his confirmation are splitting very much along partisan lines, so it's probably not going to change anyone's mind on who to vote for. On the other hand, it's also energising both sides- but since the Dems probably started out much more energised than the GOP anyway, that's a net negative for them.
I doubt it makes the slightest difference either way, the Democrats take the House regardless, the Senate is a toss up.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed though that may boost Democratic turnout regardless
538 only gives the dems a 3/4 chance of taking the House. Still favoured, but that's too close for comfort.
Not really, according to the Yougov model the Dems will match the 30 gains they had in 2006 which was the last time they took the House
Okay, but you've said that in a very misleading way (presumably deliberately? Why, HYFUD, why must you always obfuscate?), because in 2006, the total seats were 233-202, whereas Yougov is predicting 224-211.
Anyway, 538 is actually giving a similar average (+33 seats), but if what you care about is the %chance that the dems will take the house, then the variance is important too, not just the average. And in fact even the Yougov model is giving a margin of error of 12 seats, which would be enough for the GOP to retrain control.
The Dems will almost certainly take the House, the only question is whether Trump can avoid the worst first midterms of any President since Bill Clinton in 1994 who saw his party lose both the House and Senate
It works in Canada despite many centres of population being close to provincial borders. There is no reason why it couldn't work in London. If you employ someone who does not qualify, you are breaking the law. Simple as that.
How are you going to enforce it when it would be so easy to cheat?
Why is it any more easy to cheat than hiring illegal workers currently?
Why introduce any new visa regime that we know would be essentially unenforceable?
We need workable controlled immigration plans, otherwise we will be back to square one in short order.
Why are they unenforceable? Why should they be any more or less enforceable than current immigration rules? London visas make a great deal of sense. It is time to be imaginative.
Given that the Kavanaugh vote is now likely to be Sunday (thanks to a Republican Senator's prior wedding engagement), how many more stories like this, from witnesses the FBI have studiously ignored, might emerge and/or get noticed ? https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates Several former Yale students who claim to have information regarding the alleged incident with Ramirez or about Kavanaugh’s behavior at Yale said that they had not been contacted by the F.B.I. Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”...
And as @ydoethur might tell you (?), one should not doubt the word of a theological historian...
Hearsay!
I was told a rumour by someone one or two days after the event and I am absolutely 100% certain that it corroborates one side of a disputed event
Trident is a 51-49 issue so how many votes is it really going to move. Also, anybody intending to vote for Corbyn knows they are going to be getting de facto nuclear disarmament anyway with him.
We could have such a nice Navy without Trident...
We wouldn’t though.
The money would be used for education, health or policing, or tax cuts, instead.
Seems reasonable enough. The thing about Trident is it costs a lot for something we don't dare use. I suppose you will need an even longer Treason-o-meter scale....
No-one kicks a dead dog. Labour has answers for issues that people think are important. The Conservatives don't. We and possibly the electorate as a whole may not like Labour's answers. Nevertheless Labour is ahead of the Conservatives on this.
The Conservatives have Brexit. Remainers will blame them for the many detriments of Brexit. Leavers will also blame them for the many detriments that they firmly believe have nothing to do with Brexit.
QoS also has a good level of wit/humour in the phonecalls etc between Dench, Craig and Kinnear.
M: Ask him about Slate. Tanner: She wants to know about Slate. James Bond: Slate was a dead end. Tanner: He says it was a dead end. M: Damn it! He killed him.
Also in La Paz.
James Bond: [at a dirty, small motel] What are we doing? Strawberry Fields: We're teachers on sabbatical. This fits our cover. James Bond: No it doesn't. I'd rather stay at a morgue. Come on. [cut to nicer hotel] James Bond: [to the hotel receptionist] Hello. We're teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery.
a witty script does not a self-aware James Bond make.
Craig actually has quite a nice touch in self-deprecating humour, occasionally. Though QoS was, of course, awful.
As was Spectre (although not quite as bad).
The case for Craig is weakened by the fact that he has only made one good Bond film, Casino Royale, albeit the the best film in the entire series. Skyfall is half-decent, but massively overrated.
Skyfall was shite.
I prefer Spectre and even QoS.
Casino Royale was superb, and we have Fleming to thank for that. No one can write his character quite as he could.
I agree with Mr. Pedley: twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1048170759930171392
Trident is a 51-49 issue so how many votes is it really going to move. Also, anybody intending to vote for Corbyn knows they are going to be getting de facto nuclear disarmament anyway with him.
We could have such a nice Navy without Trident...
But that would mean forfeiting our ability to nuke the French. It's a tough choice.
Not an issue. Cancel Brexit and subsume us into Greater Europe and then we will be Northern France and rather than nuking the cheese eating surrender monkeys our fellow Europeans, we can use the French nukes for Trump or Putin.
I was told a rumour by someone one or two days after the event and I am absolutely 100% certain that it corroborates one side of a disputed event
Do people no longer believe in due process?
In the USA, Due Process seems to depend on which side of the political divide you are on, or where you go to church, the colour of your skin and whether or not you are female.
It has long been put about that your best chance of getting Due Process in the US is to be a white, male churchgoer. I believe the acronym is WASP...
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Given that the Kavanaugh vote is now likely to be Sunday (thanks to a Republican Senator's prior wedding engagement), how many more stories like this, from witnesses the FBI have studiously ignored, might emerge and/or get noticed ? https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates Several former Yale students who claim to have information regarding the alleged incident with Ramirez or about Kavanaugh’s behavior at Yale said that they had not been contacted by the F.B.I. Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”...
And as @ydoethur might tell you (?), one should not doubt the word of a theological historian...
Hearsay!
I was told a rumour by someone one or two days after the event and I am absolutely 100% certain that it corroborates one side of a disputed event
Do people no longer believe in due process?
It is relevant to disprove the allegation that the whole thing has been made up to stop his confirmation as a Supreme Court judge.
As you say - it doesn't prove whether the thing happened or not.
It works in Canada despite many centres of population being close to provincial borders. There is no reason why it couldn't work in London. If you employ someone who does not qualify, you are breaking the law. Simple as that.
How are you going to enforce it when it would be so easy to cheat?
Why is it any more easy to cheat than hiring illegal workers currently?
Why introduce any new visa regime that we know would be essentially unenforceable?
We need workable controlled immigration plans, otherwise we will be back to square one in short order.
Why are they unenforceable? Why should they be any more or less enforceable than current immigration rules? London visas make a great deal of sense. It is time to be imaginative.
London visas will de facto exist anyway because they’ll exist for industries and skill demands for the UK that major in London with a linked job in London.
How funny. Remember how, when Unilever announced back in March that it had decided to move its headquarters from London to Rotterdam, it was all to do with Brexit? According to the Guardian’s subheadline on 14 March: ‘Brexit and favourable business conditions in Netherlands said to be behind decision’. The following day an FT leader asserted: ‘Unilever’s protestations that [the move] has nothing to do with Brexit do not convince’. It went on to add: ‘The decision is clearly coloured by the approach Theresa May has taken on Brexit, and by the way she has handled relations with business.’ As for the BBC, while its news story on 15 March quoted Unilever as saying the move had nothing to do with Brexit, it also quoted at some length Eloise Todd, chief executive of the Best for Britain group: ‘The government are saying to anyone who will listen this is not to do with Brexit, but anyone with any sense knows it’s a factor. The company has had an HQ in the UK for over 90 years, and all that history and legacy has gone down the plughole.’
This morning, Unilever announced that it has reversed its decision, after opposition from large shareholders. The company will continue to list its shares, as it does now, in both London and Amsterdam. And guess what? The decision had nothing to do with Brexit all along. The Guardian’s story this morning states: ‘Unilever has throughout insisted the move to Rotterdam was ‘nothing to do with Brexit”
Given that the Kavanaugh vote is now likely to be Sunday (thanks to a Republican Senator's prior wedding engagement), how many more stories like this, from witnesses the FBI have studiously ignored, might emerge and/or get noticed ? https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates Several former Yale students who claim to have information regarding the alleged incident with Ramirez or about Kavanaugh’s behavior at Yale said that they had not been contacted by the F.B.I. Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”...
And as @ydoethur might tell you (?), one should not doubt the word of a theological historian...
Hearsay!
I was told a rumour by someone one or two days after the event and I am absolutely 100% certain that it corroborates one side of a disputed event
Do people no longer believe in due process?
It is relevant to disprove the allegation that the whole thing has been made up to stop his confirmation as a Supreme Court judge.
As you say - it doesn't prove whether the thing happened or not.
Has anyone (serious) made the allegation that it was made up?
I've seen suggestions that a terrible event has been exploited for political advantage, but that's not quite the same thing.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Exactly. What's not to like?
By and large we are happy with technical alignment on goods with the EU.
And TM has committed to FOM ending on 29 March next year, as recently as three days ago.
‘Why was it the UK that voted to leave, rather than any other member state?’. We show that the UK has long been one of the most Eurosceptic countries in the EU, which we argue can be partly explained by Britons’ comparatively weak sense of European identity. We also show that existing explanations of the UK’s vote to leave cannot account for Britons’ long-standing Euroscepticism: the UK scores lower than many other member states on measures of inequality/austerity, the ‘losers of globalisation’ and authoritarian values, and some of these measures are not even correlated with Euroscepticism across member states. In addition, we show that the positive association between national identity and Euroscepticism is stronger in the UK than in most other EU countries. Overall, we conclude that Britons’ weak sense of European identity was a key contributor to the Brexit vote.
Oh, and it wasn't the press, either!
Would it be really smug of me to point out that I posted here about Dennison et al's work a month ago?
...Parenthetically, it might be worth finding out. @CarlottaVance has been nagging me to understand why Leavers voted Leave. I shied away at this on the grounds that comprehension doesn't lead to agreement (there's a PJ O'Rourke quote about "the more you understand, the less you forgive") and since the vote's done ("war's over. We lost") there's no profit in it. However as an academic exercise it might be worth looking into it. There are four approaches
* The Ashcroft polls: why did individuals vote Leave? * The Goodwin groups: why did categories vote Leave * The Dennison[1] countries: why did the UK Leave, as opposed to Ireland, Sweden, Greece, etc * The British Election Study subcategories: why did races, classes, ages vote Leave
Give me a couple of weeks, see what I can throw together.
The IFS are nothing more than a leftist front organisation now. It's a joke.
Lower corp tax has seen a huge rise in corp tax receipts.
Not to mention other receipts from NI, IT , VAT etc due to the economy being boosted.
Scotland has raised tax rates and seen a fall in revenue - not rocket science.
Would be most interested to see a link that proves revenue in Scotland has fallen since income tax rates increased in April of this year. You do have one, right?
"The Scottish Property Federation analysis of data from Revenue Scotland for the April to July 2018 period shows revenues from residential sales were down £1.8 million (2%) against revenues for the same period in 2017/18."
No-one kicks a dead dog. Labour has answers for issues that people think are important. The Conservatives don't. We and possibly the electorate as a whole may not like Labour's answers. Nevertheless Labour is ahead of the Conservatives on this.
The Conservatives have Brexit. Remainers will blame them for the many detriments of Brexit. Leavers will also blame them for the many detriments that they firmly believe have nothing to do with Brexit.
The irony of course being that Lab can't attack Brexit on account of its Lab Brexit heartlands.
No-one kicks a dead dog. Labour has answers for issues that people think are important. The Conservatives don't. We and possibly the electorate as a whole may not like Labour's answers. Nevertheless Labour is ahead of the Conservatives on this.
The Conservatives have Brexit. Remainers will blame them for the many detriments of Brexit. Leavers will also blame them for the many detriments that they firmly believe have nothing to do with Brexit.
The irony of course being that Lab can't attack Brexit on account of its Lab Brexit heartlands.
But they can attack the Tories for delivering a crap Brexit deal, which amounts to much the same thing.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Exactly. What's not to like?
By and large we are happy with technical alignment on goods with the EU.
And TM has committed to FOM ending on 29 March next year, as recently as three days ago.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Exactly. What's not to like?
By and large we are happy with technical alignment on goods with the EU.
And TM has committed to FOM ending on 29 March next year, as recently as three days ago.
Has she? I thought she committed to ending it after transition?
It is relevant to disprove the allegation that the whole thing has been made up to stop his confirmation as a Supreme Court judge.
As you say - it doesn't prove whether the thing happened or not.
Has anyone (serious) made the allegation that it was made up?
I've seen suggestions that a terrible event has been exploited for political advantage, but that's not quite the same thing.
I mean who counts as serious these days in the US?
Donald Trump has said this is a 'con job'. He's not saying it was an honest mistake by the accuser. Similarly Brett Kavanaugh has said it never happened.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Maybe not good to suggest a poster is not paying attention
However, I understand your point but if this is the deal I would expect it to be approved fairly easily in the HOC
Well, it is your party’s funeral. That will make 13 years out of power seem like a lunch break.
Pre conservative conference and TM speech. Lets see if it moves the dial or not
The country is in its gravest crisis since the War,.
Dearie me..
Suez Winter(s) of Discontent 2008 financial crash Falklands Iraq wars post 9/11 terrorism etc etc
leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close.
If anyone needed evidence that many Brexiteers weren't at the front of the queue when brains were handed out need only to look at the quote: "leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close". Not all Brexit supporters are stupid, but posts like this one don't exactly help their image. This IS one of the gravest crisis since the war, and it is entirely self inflicted . If you cant see that you are a fool.
It may be one of the biggest examples of mass hysteria since the war but the reality and outcomes are far more benign than any of the other examples.
Nobody has died because of Brexit have they ?
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence. Anyone comes up with anything questioning and it is shouted down. The fact is that no-one, in particular the charlatans that fronted this massive con, have actually explained what benefits will come from risking our stability on this folly.
It would be much more honest if they said "OK, let's be honest, we hate foreigners and the EU is full of them. So is the UN so lets pull out of that too , oh and NATO. We don't care if it causes regional instability, as there is a small chance it might not, and well if it does and loads of people lose heir jobs, I don't care" . It wouldn't make me like you any more but at least I would respect your honesty
Epic projection rant. Have a cup of tea,
Equating new trade arrangements which have yet to see unemployment rising at all with 255 dead servicemen in the Falklands is a kind of mania. As is calling everyone who voted leave a xenophobic foreigner hater.
Unlike you I don't think it makes you a bad or evil person for supporting an opposing view - I just don't share your passion for extra levels of quasi-undemocratic bureaucracy.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Exactly. What's not to like?
By and large we are happy with technical alignment on goods with the EU.
And TM has committed to FOM ending on 29 March next year, as recently as three days ago.
Has she? I thought she committed to ending it after transition?
"We’re leaving the European Union, when we leave the European Union there will be an end to free movement, the immigration system that we are proposing, that we are announcing today, is a system that will operate when we bring an end to free movement and have left the European Union."
In the transition I believe (based on Javid's evidence to Home Affairs) that this is FOM to fom, because there is no time to implement significant changes at the border ahead of March.
First of all, there is the nationalist fear that dare not speak its name, namely that any second referendum on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU might be regarded as a precedent for what should happen if Scotland were ever to vote in favour of the principle of independence. The idea that there would need to be a second referendum on the terms of Scotland’s departure from the UK has been one against which the party has long since set its face.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Exactly. What's not to like?
By and large we are happy with technical alignment on goods with the EU.
And TM has committed to FOM ending on 29 March next year, as recently as three days ago.
FOM will end after the transition period is my understanding. That continues until New Year's Day 2021 (on current plans).
It is relevant to disprove the allegation that the whole thing has been made up to stop his confirmation as a Supreme Court judge.
As you say - it doesn't prove whether the thing happened or not.
Has anyone (serious) made the allegation that it was made up?
I've seen suggestions that a terrible event has been exploited for political advantage, but that's not quite the same thing.
I mean who counts as serious these days in the US?
Donald Trump has said this is a 'con job'. He's not saying it was an honest mistake by the accuser. Similarly Brett Kavanaugh has said it never happened.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Exactly. What's not to like?
By and large we are happy with technical alignment on goods with the EU.
And TM has committed to FOM ending on 29 March next year, as recently as three days ago.
Has she? I thought she committed to ending it after transition?
It is. There was an initial suggestion that it might end next March but it was very quickly pointed out that for 'things to stay the same' FOM would have to continue too.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
You think a perpetual all UK backstop is an improvement? Er - how is this leaving?
It relates to the Customs Union not the single market.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Then you are not paying the slightest attention. If GB diverges from EU regulations, being in a CU will not solve the NI border problem at all. So any backstop is going to require the UK to remain fully aligned with SM rules. Which means the backstop is a permanent backdoor to SM membership, which means that the EU will insist on FOM and money.
Exactly. What's not to like?
By and large we are happy with technical alignment on goods with the EU.
And TM has committed to FOM ending on 29 March next year, as recently as three days ago.
Has she? I thought she committed to ending it after transition?
"We’re leaving the European Union, when we leave the European Union there will be an end to free movement, the immigration system that we are proposing, that we are announcing today, is a system that will operate when we bring an end to free movement and have left the European Union."
In the transition I believe (based on Javid's evidence to Home Affairs) that this is FOM to fom, because there is no time to implement significant changes at the border ahead of March.
Nowhere in that quote does she put a date on it. When we leave the European Union, there will be an end to free movement [at some point].
Comments
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1048170759930171392
The Troubles were, for many, in a different country.
We could have such a nice Navy without Trident...
Maybe you could try arguing that the effects of Brexit, when it actually occurs, won't be that bad? I'm not sure this "pretend not to understand the concept of causality" tactic you've settled on is going to pay off.
Brexiteers (especially on here) = thick as sh*t!
As before, Leavers are now putting their hopes in Barnier continuing to be an unreasonable little prick. Ireland may like the all-UK backstop because it gets them off the hook they crafted for themselves, but Barnier has always hated it, because it basically offers backdoor UK access into the SM without respecting the four 'freedoms' (inverted commas necessary when saying that!). Olly Robbins plan all along was to use the backstop to achieve backdoor SM access and Barnier knows it.
So I will expect that Barnier will insist that if the backstop is executed the UK will have to observe FOM and pay money which will make it impossible for May to pass off - not that it will be possible anyway.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates
Several former Yale students who claim to have information regarding the alleged incident with Ramirez or about Kavanaugh’s behavior at Yale said that they had not been contacted by the F.B.I. Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”...
And as @ydoethur might tell you (?), one should not doubt the word of a theological historian...
What this will do is make people reconsider Spain and think about Turkey or the US instead.
Same applies, of course, in Birmingham, the City of London and Warrington.
Any hostility was directed at a definable minority. It wasn’t, as now, right across the country, and across communities.
Is Turkey part of the EU?
Iraq did have a big fallout on politics and diplomacy, just as Brexit is doing.
Technically it would be possible to create a FTA that ends free movement and replaces it with work permits and effectively stays in the Customs Union eventually
If Kavanaugh is confirmed though that may boost Democratic turnout regardless
I may have dropped a decimal in there somewhere...
Boom boom!
However, regrettably, I think you are guilty of gigantic dollops of supposition.
I realise it is getting late in Australia so maybe have a quiet glass of wine while you think it over.
Oh dear
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/1048148687115968513
Happy days!
However, I understand your point but if this is the deal I would expect it to be approved fairly easily in the HOC
Anyway, 538 is actually giving a similar average (+33 seats), but if what you care about is the %chance that the dems will take the house, then the variance is important too, not just the average. And in fact even the Yougov model is giving a margin of error of 12 seats, which would be enough for the GOP to retrain control.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/03/02/the-idea-that-post-brexit-trade-negotiations-would-be-wrapped-up-quickly-is-divorced-from-reality/
http://www.cityam.com/248272/we-should-regionalise-immigration-decisions-starting-london
May: -23 (+3)
Corbyn: -28 (-5)
Johnson: -28 (-6)
Also:
Hammond: -33 (-5) (38% DK)
Hunt: -44 (n/a) (31% DK)
We need workable controlled immigration plans, otherwise we will be back to square one in short order.
The money would be used for education, health or policing, or tax cuts, instead.
I was told a rumour by someone one or two days after the event and I am absolutely 100% certain that it corroborates one side of a disputed event
Do people no longer believe in due process?
The Conservatives have Brexit. Remainers will blame them for the many detriments of Brexit. Leavers will also blame them for the many detriments that they firmly believe have nothing to do with Brexit.
I prefer Spectre and even QoS.
Casino Royale was superb, and we have Fleming to thank for that. No one can write his character quite as he could.
It has long been put about that your best chance of getting Due Process in the US is to be a white, male churchgoer. I believe the acronym is WASP...
I’d vote for Corbyn if he promised this.
As you say - it doesn't prove whether the thing happened or not.
Not many immigrants will live too far away.
This morning, Unilever announced that it has reversed its decision, after opposition from large shareholders. The company will continue to list its shares, as it does now, in both London and Amsterdam. And guess what? The decision had nothing to do with Brexit all along. The Guardian’s story this morning states: ‘Unilever has throughout insisted the move to Rotterdam was ‘nothing to do with Brexit”
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/the-unilever-hq-move-is-another-blow-to-project-fear/
I've seen suggestions that a terrible event has been exploited for political advantage, but that's not quite the same thing.
And TM has committed to FOM ending on 29 March next year, as recently as three days ago.
Why yes. Yes, it would.
See this from September 8th 2018
...Parenthetically, it might be worth finding out. @CarlottaVance has been nagging me to understand why Leavers voted Leave. I shied away at this on the grounds that comprehension doesn't lead to agreement (there's a PJ O'Rourke quote about "the more you understand, the less you forgive") and since the vote's done ("war's over. We lost") there's no profit in it. However as an academic exercise it might be worth looking into it. There are four approaches
* The Ashcroft polls: why did individuals vote Leave?
* The Goodwin groups: why did categories vote Leave
* The Dennison[1] countries: why did the UK Leave, as opposed to Ireland, Sweden, Greece, etc
* The British Election Study subcategories: why did races, classes, ages vote Leave
Give me a couple of weeks, see what I can throw together.
[1] https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/conference/fac-socsci/epop-2017/documents/epop-2017-programme-final.pdf
(however, thank you for the link. Please keep posting)
https://www.insider.co.uk/news/lbtt-property-revenues-suffer-slowdown-13231928
"The Scottish Property Federation analysis of data from Revenue Scotland for the April to July 2018 period shows revenues from residential sales were down £1.8 million (2%) against revenues for the same period in 2017/18."
Missed one:
Javid: -21 (n/a) (38% DK)
So May a tad less dreadful than her immediate competitors, and Javid ahead among those aware of his.
* Dan Stevens
* That bloke from Poldark
* That bloke from Bodyguard
Tom Hardy is very good in a limited range but he can't do suave.
I do not even know who this Hiddlestone bloke is.
[Edit: It was TSE who said it, but I have looked Mr Hiddlestone up and ... no! Just no! ]
He even ordered a martini.
Donald Trump has said this is a 'con job'. He's not saying it was an honest mistake by the accuser. Similarly Brett Kavanaugh has said it never happened.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/need-know-allegations-made-new-yorker-article-judge-brett-kavanaugh/
https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1045061535855509505
Equating new trade arrangements which have yet to see unemployment rising at all with 255 dead servicemen in the Falklands is a kind of mania. As is calling everyone who voted leave a xenophobic foreigner hater.
Unlike you I don't think it makes you a bad or evil person for supporting an opposing view - I just don't share your passion for extra levels of quasi-undemocratic bureaucracy.
In the transition I believe (based on Javid's evidence to Home Affairs) that this is FOM to fom, because there is no time to implement significant changes at the border ahead of March.
First of all, there is the nationalist fear that dare not speak its name, namely that any second referendum on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU might be regarded as a precedent for what should happen if Scotland were ever to vote in favour of the principle of independence. The idea that there would need to be a second referendum on the terms of Scotland’s departure from the UK has been one against which the party has long since set its face.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2018/10/nicola-sturgeons-brexit-dilemma/
I don't believe that Kavanaugh has said no attack occurred but that the event as described - i.e. an attack by him did not