I have rarely been accused of not being clear about what I think!
I have said a few times recently that if there were a vote now between No Deal and Remain, given where we are, I would vote Remain. If it were between May's Deal and No Deal probably the former, though I don't particularly like it and think we may as well remain if that is the option.
I do feel that the last few years have been a huge missed opportunity to put the relationship between Britain and the EU on a much better, more stable and more productive footing. I don't really like the way either of them have behaved over quite a long time frame. So it does feel at times like a bit of a Hobson's choice.
And I have very strongly disliked the way people are described as Remoaners or Leavers and the bitterness and bile directed at each (both in public and sometimes on this forum) so I want no part in that at all. So I've opted out of putting myself in either camp.
I come here to enjoy and try out and test the different arguments and, when we're not arguing interminably about Brexit, learn things.
If the EU had been a less insecure institution, it would have negotiated a form of associate membership with Cameron that would have allowed some deviation from their gloriously misnomered "four freedoms", whilst for a reduced membership fee largely keeping the trading arrangements in place. Most people happy. Problem gone away.
So all the good bits, no freedom of movement for people, reduced payments. Sounds a bit like cherry picking.
I thought freedom of movement was a good thing? At least that's what they keep saying.
I have rarely been accused of not being clear about what I think!
I have said a few times recently that if there were a vote now between No Deal and Remain, given where we are, I would vote Remain. If it were between May's Deal and No Deal probably the former, though I don't particularly like it and think we may as well remain if that is the option.
I do feel that the last few years have been a huge missed opportunity to put the relationship between Britain and the EU on a much better, more stable and more productive footing. I don't really like the way either of them have behaved over quite a long time frame. So it does feel at times like a bit of a Hobson's choice.
And I have very strongly disliked the way people are described as Remoaners or Leavers and the bitterness and bile directed at each (both in public and sometimes on this forum) so I want no part in that at all. So I've opted out of putting myself in either camp.
I come here to enjoy and try out and test the different arguments and, when we're not arguing interminably about Brexit, learn things.
If the EU had been a less insecure institution, it would have negotiated a form of associate membership with Cameron that would have allowed some deviation from their gloriously misnomered "four freedoms", whilst for a reduced membership fee largely keeping the trading arrangements in place. Most people happy. Problem gone away.
So: all the benefits, ability to flex the four freedoms and a reduced fee. Why on earth would the EU have ever offered us that?
Oh wait... is it because they need us more than we need them?
Presumably they are going to stop these European grouping designations in March next year?
It really says everything that ever needed to be said about Corbyn that the Tories are actually increasing their lead as ministers make for the door.
41% after being in power for nearly 9 years isn't bad. Only slightly less than Blair achieved in 1997 when winning a 179 seat majority.
Thatcher's Tories in Nov 1987 were doing a lot better (double-digits lead and polling in mid-40s to 50 (!); Blair's Labour in Nov 2005 were ahead by mid-single figures but polling more in the very high-30s due the LDs polling around 20. Both of these, of course, were coming off election wins only a few months earlier.
I have rarely been accused of not being clear about what I think!
I have said a few times recently that if there were a vote now between No Deal and Remain, given where we are, I would vote Remain. If it were between May's Deal and No Deal probably the former, though I don't particularly like it and think we may as well remain if that is the option.
I do feel that the last few years have been a huge missed opportunity to put the relationship between Britain and the EU on a much better, more stable and more productive footing. I don't really like the way either of them have behaved over quite a long time frame. So it does feel at times like a bit of a Hobson's choice.
And I have very strongly disliked the way people are described as Remoaners or Leavers and the bitterness and bile directed at each (both in public and sometimes on this forum) so I want no part in that at all. So I've opted out of putting myself in either camp.
I come here to enjoy and try out and test the different arguments and, when we're not arguing interminably about Brexit, learn things.
If the EU had been a less insecure institution, it would have negotiated a form of associate membership with Cameron that would have allowed some deviation from their gloriously misnomered "four freedoms", whilst for a reduced membership fee largely keeping the trading arrangements in place. Most people happy. Problem gone away.
I dont think we can blame the EU
Verhofstedt is on the record as saying he would have supported associate membership but Cameron ruled out asking for it. It appears he thought they needed outr "influence"
They could have gently led him by the nose and said "it's all you are going to get, matey".
A very poor piece of politics by Cameron. On which, to be fair, he was most likey badly advised by the FO/CS. He could be pretty much king of all he surveyed now, preparing to step down as PM with the UK-EU relationship settled and a glorious legacy.
Sunil, shall we start a petition on Parliament.uk to make yellow front ends mandatory on British trains again? It just doesn't look right.
Too right. My gym is next to the line between Thornaby and Middlesbrough. They have an elevated indoor running track with a panoramic view over the running lines and Tees Yard - much easier to spot a flash of yellow as I do laps than black.
And having taken an ocean of cash to depart my previous employer I have plenty of time to spend doing laps at the gym.
Now that Arizona looks near-certain to be a Democrat win, and with very close results elsewhere and a good showing in the House and Governors' races, the overall picture for the Democrats does look rather better than it seemed to be in the immediate aftermath of the elections. Even so, it's not such a good result that the Democrats can conclude that voters as a whole are sick of Trump and the Republicans generally. Fairly neutral overall in terms of indicating whether Trump might get re-elected, I'd say.
One (bad for Trump) theory I've seen about this election is that the Trump base is rabid and dedicated and they came out and voted for him in droves in an unprecedented for a century mid-term turnout (incidentally well done anyone who predicated that turnout was going to be really high this year, good call).
But that's it. There aren't enough rabid dedicated Trump supporters. Anti-Trumpers are also rabid and dedicated. Come 2020 the Rustbelt soft-Trump voters from 2016 who are not seeing any benefit to this strong economy are not going to come out to vote for Trump and any economic slow down will turn soft-Trump into soft-GenericDem voters.
TPExpress are in near meltdown on our line tbh - there has been no improvement since May, and autumn has been a mare. So many trains simply not getting to terminal stations before turning around, people not getting to Manchester Airport and AIUI commuters to and from Scarborough and Middlesbrough giving up on jobs that relied on the commute in some numbers. Not so bad for me in the central bit of line with 6tph, I just turn up and at some point a train appears.
And still the winter timetable insists on looping the airport trains round Oxford Road, Britain's most delay prone station, rather than reversing at Piccadilly as the Sheffield trains do and as ours used to. Curse the Ordeal Chord.
I was hoping the faster trains would be able catch up a few more of the delays.
On the other hand I get the sense that Northern have stabilized things a lot in many places.
Question....World Chess Championship is going on. I don't know a huge amount about it, but watching a few streams they have talking heads discussing "best strategies" as if there is a lot of moves open to debate.
I was under the assumption that Chess AI was so strong now there isn't any real debate, you can just put the board in and it will tell you the next (near) optimal move.
Skynet Google Deepmind will find the best move.
The amount of hiring they have been doing is quite incredible. I believe they have about 600 people now.
Another British pioneer sold to and reliant on American enterprise. But for the chess, it is said that smartphone apps would beat most grandmasters.
I have rarely been accused of not being clear about what I think!
I have said a few times recently that if there were a vote now between No Deal and Remain, given where we are, I would vote Remain. If it were between May's Deal and No Deal probably the former, though I don't particularly like it and think we may as well remain if that is the option.
I do feel that the last few years have been a huge missed opportunity to put the relationship between Britain and the EU on a much better, more stable and more productive footing. I don't really like the way either of them have behaved over quite a long time frame. So it does feel at times like a bit of a Hobson's choice.
And I have very strongly disliked the way people are described as Remoaners or Leavers and the bitterness and bile directed at each (both in public and sometimes on this forum) so I want no part in that at all. So I've opted out of putting myself in either camp.
I come here to enjoy and try out and test the different arguments and, when we're not arguing interminably about Brexit, learn things.
If the EU had been a less insecure institution, it would have negotiated a form of associate membership with Cameron that would have allowed some deviation from their gloriously misnomered "four freedoms", whilst for a reduced membership fee largely keeping the trading arrangements in place. Most people happy. Problem gone away.
So: all the benefits, ability to flex the four freedoms and a reduced fee. Why on earth would the EU have ever offered us that?
Oh wait... is it because they need us more than we need them?
It would have been Sensible Politics. A pragmatic solution for something that would have kept their second largest contributor inside the tent. It's only their insecurity that keeps them bleating on about not "cherry picking." Other times, cherry picking works well enough in the EU (especially if it is the French deciding which bits they will honour - and which they will ignore). And with the UK, they could say it was doing no more than acknowledging we were already an "associate member" in practice, not having signed up to their beloved Euro currency.
That they couldn't find a way to keep the UK onboard is a black mark against their entire political endeavour.
TPExpress are in near meltdown on our line tbh - there has been no improvement since May, and autumn has been a mare. So many trains simply not getting to terminal stations before turning around, people not getting to Manchester Airport and AIUI commuters to and from Scarborough and Middlesbrough giving up on jobs that relied on the commute in some numbers. Not so bad for me in the central bit of line with 6tph, I just turn up and at some point a train appears.
And still the winter timetable insists on looping the airport trains round Oxford Road, Britain's most delay prone station, rather than reversing at Piccadilly as the Sheffield trains do and as ours used to. Curse the Ordeal Chord.
I was hoping the faster trains would be able catch up a few more of the delays.
On the other hand I get the sense that Northern have stabilized things a lot in many places.
I nearly died trying to catch a Northern train from Piccadilly.
Platform 13/14 was packed and there were an awful lot of passengers trying to get off.
If there wasn't so much attention being paid to Brexit by the world, people would be noticing a very sharp slowdown in the EU. At least we've got a reason for the slowdown here, companies are putting off investment because the government have yet to make clear what the situation is going to be in march re no deal. There seems to be no real reason for the EU slowdown but no one is asking questions because all the attention is on brexit.
I would have thought the trade war between USA and China was a good reason for the slowdown...
Not a great reason, if anything Anti-Dumping trade sanctions by the US against China should help European manufacturers as average import prices would rise, making them more competitive.
Come on you two. You're both better than that. Get a grip. This is the moment where good people get to work. If you don't like the choice on offer, get off your backsides and stand.
I am of an age where even if I wanted to I would not even be considered. Parties want biddable youngsters not feisty women with knowledge and experience who know their own mind and are not afraid of saying what they think.
I have often wondered what you do think. I have inferred that you are a Remainer but have you been prepared to say it?
I have rarely been accused of not being clear about what I think!
I have said a few times recently that if there were a vote now between No Deal and Remain, given where we are, I would vote Remain. If it were between May's Deal and No Deal probably the former, though I don't particularly like it and think we may as well remain if that is the option.
I do feel that the last few years have been a huge missed opportunity to put the relationship between Britain and the EU on a much better, more stable and more productive footing. I don't really like the way either of them have behaved over quite a long time frame. So it does feel at times like a bit of a Hobson's choice.
And I have very strongly disliked the way people are described as Remoaners or Leavers and the bitterness and bile directed at each (both in public and sometimes on this forum) so I want no part in that at all. So I've opted out of putting myself in either camp.
I come here to enjoy and try out and test the different arguments and, when we're not arguing interminably about Brexit, learn things.
Thanks. I probably just missed it. How did you vote in 2016, I presume Remain?
snip
Thanks for the chat.
It's your prerogative but it was you said you were not scared of saying what you think, yet you are being deliberately coy about your vote in 2016.
For what it's worth, I don't think it will make much difference – the fact that you would vote Remain now will mean you will be inevitably cast by our Brexitist friends as a 'Remoaner', 'Quisling' or 'Traitor', or whatever the preferred epithet is du jour.
"Green party chief Winfried Kretschmann causes offence with migrant call
A row over migration has broken out in the top ranks of Germany’s resurgent Green party as a poll showed that it had achieved its highest level of popularity in seven years.
The leadership distanced itself from the Greens’ most successful elected politician, who described “hordes of young, testosterone-driven men” from overseas as “the most dangerous thing human evolution has produced”."
What on earth is an MP doing living in social housing?
Worse than bed blocking in NHS where the blocking is involuntary - the MP has the wherewithal to release the social housing for use by someone with far greater need.
That's right (cf Jess Phillips or Anna Soubry for two counter-examples). People outside party politics wildly overestimate the amount of central filtering. When I applied I had zero contacts in the party or the constituency - members voted for me on the night on the basis of who gave the best presentation. It was the 18th seat I'd applied to, and AFAIK the central party made no detectable effort whatever to influence the choice in any of them (there are well-known exceptions but it they're unusual.
I thought you had to be on a central list.....
Not really, there's a more or less trivial filter to try to make sure you speak English, know what Parliament is, and aren't bonkers. I know just one person who failed (his English was really hard to understand) but it's pretty much a formality for anyone plausible (and for some who aren't all the plausible, frankly). Even though i was living in Switzerland, I passed it without trouble.
Now that Arizona looks near-certain to be a Democrat win, and with very close results elsewhere and a good showing in the House and Governors' races, the overall picture for the Democrats does look rather better than it seemed to be in the immediate aftermath of the elections. Even so, it's not such a good result that the Democrats can conclude that voters as a whole are sick of Trump and the Republicans generally. Fairly neutral overall in terms of indicating whether Trump might get re-elected, I'd say.
One (bad for Trump) theory I've seen about this election is that the Trump base is rabid and dedicated and they came out and voted for him in droves in an unprecedented for a century mid-term turnout (incidentally well done anyone who predicated that turnout was going to be really high this year, good call).
But that's it. There aren't enough rabid dedicated Trump supporters. Anti-Trumpers are also rabid and dedicated. Come 2020 the Rustbelt soft-Trump voters from 2016 who are not seeing any benefit to this strong economy are not going to come out to vote for Trump and any economic slow down will turn soft-Trump into soft-GenericDem voters.
That would be my guess too. Also Trump's economic policies might be taking effect by then. The Democrats still need to pick the right person, though.
I have rarely been accused of not being clear about what I think!
I have said a few times recently that if there were a vote now between No Deal and Remain, given where we are, I would vote Remain. If it were between May's Deal and No Deal probably the former, though I don't particularly like it and think we may as well remain if that is the option.
I do feel that the last few years have been a huge missed opportunity to put the relationship between Britain and the EU on a much better, more stable and more productive footing. I don't really like the way either of them have behaved over quite a long time frame. So it does feel at times like a bit of a Hobson's choice.
And I have very strongly disliked the way people are described as Remoaners or Leavers and the bitterness and bile directed at each (both in public and sometimes on this forum) so I want no part in that at all. So I've opted out of putting myself in either camp.
I come here to enjoy and try out and test the different arguments and, when we're not arguing interminably about Brexit, learn things.
If the EU had been a less insecure institution, it would have negotiated a form of associate membership with Cameron that would have allowed some deviation from their gloriously misnomered "four freedoms", whilst for a reduced membership fee largely keeping the trading arrangements in place. Most people happy. Problem gone away.
So: all the benefits, ability to flex the four freedoms and a reduced fee. Why on earth would the EU have ever offered us that?
Oh wait... is it because they need us more than we need them?
It would have been Sensible Politics. A pragmatic solution for something that would have kept their second largest contributor inside the tent. It's only their insecurity that keeps them bleating on about not "cherry picking." Other times, cherry picking works well enough in the EU (especially if it is the French deciding which bits they will honour - and which they will ignore). And with the UK, they could say it was doing no more than acknowledging we were already an "associate member" in practice, not having signed up to their beloved Euro currency.
That they couldn't find a way to keep the UK onboard is a black mark against their entire political endeavour.
Until the UK is overboard, any such assertions are premature.
I have rarely been accused of not being clear about what I think!
I have said a few times recently that if there were a vote now between No Deal and Remain, given where we are, I would vote Remain. If it were between May's Deal and No Deal probably the former, though I don't particularly like it and think we may as well remain if that is the option.
I do feel that the last few years have been a huge missed opportunity to put the relationship between Britain and the EU on a much better, more stable and more productive footing. I don't really like the way either of them have behaved over quite a long time frame. So it does feel at times like a bit of a Hobson's choice.
And I have very strongly disliked the way people are described as Remoaners or Leavers and the bitterness and bile directed at each (both in public and sometimes on this forum) so I want no part in that at all. So I've opted out of putting myself in either camp.
I come here to enjoy and try out and test the different arguments and, when we're not arguing interminably about Brexit, learn things.
If the EU had been a less insecure institution, it would have negotiated a form of associate membership with Cameron that would have allowed some deviation from their gloriously misnomered "four freedoms", whilst for a reduced membership fee largely keeping the trading arrangements in place. Most people happy. Problem gone away.
So: all the benefits, ability to flex the four freedoms and a reduced fee. Why on earth would the EU have ever offered us that?
Oh wait... is it because they need us more than we need them?
It would have been Sensible Politics. A pragmatic solution for something that would have kept their second largest contributor inside the tent. It's only their insecurity that keeps them bleating on about not "cherry picking." Other times, cherry picking works well enough in the EU (especially if it is the French deciding which bits they will honour - and which they will ignore). And with the UK, they could say it was doing no more than acknowledging we were already an "associate member" in practice, not having signed up to their beloved Euro currency.
That they couldn't find a way to keep the UK onboard is a black mark against their entire political endeavour.
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
I'm not a particular fan of Roger Scruton. However, I can't for the life of me see how his views on a range of unrelated subjects disqualify him from carrying out his function chairing the beauty in buildings commission. Since he lectured in aesthetics for more than 20 years, I would have thought he is superabundantly well-qualified to carry out the role.
Compare and contrast Toby Young, who was put forward for a job for no better reason than he was a mate of the Johnsons.
I have rarely been accused of not being clear about what I think!
I have said a few times recently that if there were a vote now between No Deal and Remain, given where we are, I would vote Remain. If it were between May's Deal and No Deal probably the former, though I don't particularly like it and think we may as well remain if that is the option.
I do feel that the last few years have been a huge missed opportunity to put the relationship between Britain and the EU on a much better, more stable and more productive footing. I don't really like the way either of them have behaved over quite a long time frame. So it does feel at times like a bit of a Hobson's choice.
And I have very strongly disliked the way people are described as Remoaners or Leavers and the bitterness and bile directed at each (both in public and sometimes on this forum) so I want no part in that at all. So I've opted out of putting myself in either camp.
I come here to enjoy and try out and test the different arguments and, when we're not arguing interminably about Brexit, learn things.
If the EU had been a less insecure institution, it would have negotiated a form of associate membership with Cameron that would have allowed some deviation from their gloriously misnomered "four freedoms", whilst for a reduced membership fee largely keeping the trading arrangements in place. Most people happy. Problem gone away.
So: all the benefits, ability to flex the four freedoms and a reduced fee. Why on earth would the EU have ever offered us that?
Oh wait... is it because they need us more than we need them?
It would have been Sensible Politics. A pragmatic solution for something that would have kept their second largest contributor inside the tent. It's only their insecurity that keeps them bleating on about not "cherry picking." Other times, cherry picking works well enough in the EU (especially if it is the French deciding which bits they will honour - and which they will ignore). And with the UK, they could say it was doing no more than acknowledging we were already an "associate member" in practice, not having signed up to their beloved Euro currency.
That they couldn't find a way to keep the UK onboard is a black mark against their entire political endeavour.
Apparently, we do not want to be on board. We are leaving...
I have rarely been accused of not being clear about what I think!
I have said a few times recently that if there were a vote now between No Deal and Remain, given where we are, I would vote Remain. If it were between May's Deal and No Deal probably the former, though I don't particularly like it and think we may as well remain if that is the option.
I do feel that the last few years have been a huge missed opportunity to put the relationship between Britain and the EU on a much better, more stable and more productive footing. I don't really like the way either of them have behaved over quite a long time frame. So it does feel at times like a bit of a Hobson's choice.
And I have very strongly disliked the way people are described as Remoaners or Leavers and the bitterness and bile directed at each (both in public and sometimes on this forum) so I want no part in that at all. So I've opted out of putting myself in either camp.
I come here to enjoy and try out and test the different arguments and, when we're not arguing interminably about Brexit, learn things.
If the EU had been a less insecure institution, it would have negotiated a form of associate membership with Cameron that would have allowed some deviation from their gloriously misnomered "four freedoms", whilst for a reduced membership fee largely keeping the trading arrangements in place. Most people happy. Problem gone away.
So: all the benefits, ability to flex the four freedoms and a reduced fee. Why on earth would the EU have ever offered us that?
Oh wait... is it because they need us more than we need them?
It would have been Sensible Politics. A pragmatic solution for something that would have kept their second largest contributor inside the tent. It's only their insecurity that keeps them bleating on about not "cherry picking." Other times, cherry picking works well enough in the EU (especially if it is the French deciding which bits they will honour - and which they will ignore). And with the UK, they could say it was doing no more than acknowledging we were already an "associate member" in practice, not having signed up to their beloved Euro currency.
That they couldn't find a way to keep the UK onboard is a black mark against their entire political endeavour.
Apparently, we do not want to be on board. We are leaving...
Apparently, we do not want to be on board. We are leaving...
We weren't when Cameron was in his renegotiation.
That was then, this is now.
Cameron should have accepted the changes and then kept negotiating. Even better, he should have put the UK into the Euro and then demand that, with the financial weight of the City, the UK should have an immense say in fiscal policy.
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
Apparently, we do not want to be on board. We are leaving...
We weren't when Cameron was in his renegotiation.
That was then, this is now.
Cameron should have accepted the changes and then kept negotiating. Even better, he should have put the UK into the Euro and then demand that, with the financial weight of the City, the UK should have an immense say in fiscal policy.
He who pays the piper calls the tune ...
There was never the support for joining the Euro and probably never will be. The pound is a strong currency and we have all the influence we require.
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
No club would allow non-members all the benefits with none of the obligations. Why on earth would Leavers assume otherwise?
I have rarely been accused of not being clear about what I think!
I have said a few times recently that if there were a vote now between No Deal and Remain, given where we are, I would vote Remain. If it were between May's Deal and No Deal probably the former, though I don't particularly like it and think we may as well remain if that is the option.
I do feel that the last few years have been a huge missed opportunity to put the relationship between Britain and the EU on a much better, more stable and more productive footing. I don't really like the way either of them have behaved over quite a long time frame. So it does feel at times like a bit of a Hobson's choice.
And I have very strongly disliked the way people are described as Remoaners or Leavers and the bitterness and bile directed at each (both in public and sometimes on this forum) so I want no part in that at all. So I've opted out of putting myself in either camp.
I come here to enjoy and try out and test the different arguments and, when we're not arguing interminably about Brexit, learn things.
If the EU had been a less insecure institution, it would have negotiated a form of associate membership with Cameron that would have allowed some deviation from their gloriously misnomered "four freedoms", whilst for a reduced membership fee largely keeping the trading arrangements in place. Most people happy. Problem gone away.
So: all the benefits, ability to flex the four freedoms and a reduced fee. Why on earth would the EU have ever offered us that?
Oh wait... is it because they need us more than we need them?
It would have been Sensible Politics. A pragmatic solution for something that would have kept their second largest contributor inside the tent. It's only their insecurity that keeps them bleating on about not "cherry picking." Other times, cherry picking works well enough in the EU (especially if it is the French deciding which bits they will honour - and which they will ignore). And with the UK, they could say it was doing no more than acknowledging we were already an "associate member" in practice, not having signed up to their beloved Euro currency.
That they couldn't find a way to keep the UK onboard is a black mark against their entire political endeavour.
Apparently, we do not want to be on board. We are leaving...
As a result of a shockingly poor piece of negotiation.
(Possibly only beaten in the history of modern international negotiating by Theresa May's follow up.....)
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
No club would allow non-members all the benefits with none of the obligations. Why on earth would Leavers assume otherwise?
Because they were naive. That doesn't make the EU's behaviour any less disgraceful, most notably their refusal to discuss what we actually need to discuss, namely the future relationship. Negotiations on that should have started in 2016, before we started discussing the transitional arrangements to get there, but they adamantly refused to do so. I'm not sure what the UK could have done better in that respect, given that our counter-party didn't act in good faith, or even within the narrow terms of Article 50.
Apparently, we do not want to be on board. We are leaving...
As a result of a shockingly poor piece of negotiation.
(Possibly only beaten in the history of modern international negotiating by Theresa May's follow up.....)
No. We are leaving because OUR govt triggered A50 with no preparation whatsoever. No one made Mrs May do it. She could still be sitting on that A50 letter if she wanted to and use it to exert leverage on the country's behalf. It was known in advance that once A50 was triggered then Brussels was in the driving seat. People kept warning about it.
We allowed our Press to vilify the EU for decades. Our govt used Brussels as a whipping boy for all their unpopular policies and headlines. We voted out. Our govt triggered A50.
The Democrats will be encouraged by winning governorships and Senate and House races in key midwest states like Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania but in 2020 they will need a candidate who appeals to them too. Scranton and rustbelt raised Biden or the populist Sanders are more likely to do so than the coastal elite Harris and Warren
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
No club would allow non-members all the benefits with none of the obligations. Why on earth would Leavers assume otherwise?
Because they were naive. That doesn't make the EU's behaviour any less disgraceful, most notably their refusal to discuss what we actually need to discuss, namely the future relationship. Negotiations on that should have started in 2016, before we started discussing the transitional arrangements to get there, but they adamantly refused to do so. I'm not sure what the UK could have done better in that respect, given that our counter-party didn't act in good faith, or even within the narrow terms of Article 50.
The biggest naivety was assuming the EU, or indeed any other trading partner, will make things easy for us. In fact it was hubris rather than naivety. We've stuck two fingers up to the EU and then expected them to give us an easy ride.
I have rarely been accused of not being clear about what I think!
I have said a few times recently that if there were a vote now between No Deal and Remain, given where we are, I would vote Remain. If it were between May's Deal and No Deal probably the former, though I don't particularly like it and think we may as well remain if that is the option.
I do feel that the last few years have been a huge missed opportunity to put the relationship between Britain and the EU on a much better, more stable and more productive footing. I don't really like the way either of them have behaved over quite a long time frame. So it does feel at times like a bit of a Hobson's choice.
And I have very strongly disliked the way people are described as Remoaners or Leavers and the bitterness and bile directed at each (both in public and sometimes on this forum) so I want no part in that at all. So I've opted out of putting myself in either camp.
I come here to enjoy and try out and test the different arguments and, when we're not arguing interminably about Brexit, learn things.
If the EU had been a less insecure institution, it would have negotiated a form of associate membership with Cameron that would have allowed some deviation from their gloriously misnomered "four freedoms", whilst for a reduced membership fee largely keeping the trading arrangements in place. Most people happy. Problem gone away.
So: all the benefits, ability to flex the four freedoms and a reduced fee. Why on earth would the EU have ever offered us that?
Oh wait... is it because they need us more than we need them?
It would have been Sensible Politics. A pragmatic solution for something that would have kept their second largest contributor inside the tent. It's only their insecurity that keeps them bleating on about not "cherry picking." Other times, cherry picking works well enough in the EU (especially if it is the French deciding which bits they will honour - and which they will ignore). And with the UK, they could say it was doing no more than acknowledging we were already an "associate member" in practice, not having signed up to their beloved Euro currency.
That they couldn't find a way to keep the UK onboard is a black mark against their entire political endeavour.
Until the UK is overboard, any such assertions are premature.
No, it really isn't. The EU had the opportunity to be grown up. Indeed, they had a Treaty obligation to be so.
Instead, they have played into the hands of those who had deep misgivings about their whole Mafia-family venture....
Apparently, we do not want to be on board. We are leaving...
As a result of a shockingly poor piece of negotiation.
(Possibly only beaten in the history of modern international negotiating by Theresa May's follow up.....)
No. We are leaving because OUR govt triggered A50 with no preparation whatsoever. No one made Mrs May do it. She could still be sitting on that A50 letter if she wanted to and use it to exert leverage on the country's behalf. It was known in advance that once A50 was triggered then Brussels was in the driving seat. People kept warning about it.
We allowed our Press to vilify the EU for decades. Our govt used Brussels as a whipping boy for all their unpopular policies and headlines. We voted out. Our govt triggered A50.
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
No club would allow non-members all the benefits with none of the obligations. Why on earth would Leavers assume otherwise?
Because they were naive. That doesn't make the EU's behaviour any less disgraceful, most notably their refusal to discuss what we actually need to discuss, namely the future relationship. Negotiations on that should have started in 2016, before we started discussing the transitional arrangements to get there, but they adamantly refused to do so. I'm not sure what the UK could have done better in that respect, given that our counter-party didn't act in good faith, or even within the narrow terms of Article 50.
The biggest naivety was assuming the EU, or indeed any other trading partner, will make things easy for us. In fact it was hubris rather than naivety. We've stuck two fingers up to the EU and then expected them to give us an easy ride.
Well, I can't speak for Leavers, but as someone who voted Remain (and who spent a lot of time here pulling apart the Brexit case before the referendum), I must say I wasn't expecting the EU to be so vindictive and inflexible, and to endanger their own economies so grossly, simply because we exercised our right under the Treaties to seek an amicable exit.
The Democrats will be encouraged by winning governorships and Senate and House races in key midwest states like Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania but in 2020 they will need a candidate who appeals to them too. Scranton and rustbelt raised Biden or the populist Sanders are more likely to do so than the coastal elite Harris and Warren
The Democrats will be encouraged by winning governorships and Senate and House races in key midwest states like Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania but in 2020 they will need a candidate who appeals to them too. Scranton and rustbelt raised Biden or the populist Sanders are more likely to do so than the coastal elite Harris and Warren
Biden as candidate with Beto as VP would be the ultimate candidacy that would cover all wings of the party, but I can’t see the Dems allowing an all-male ticket.
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
No club would allow non-members all the benefits with none of the obligations. Why on earth would Leavers assume otherwise?
Because they were naive. That doesn't make the EU's behaviour any less disgraceful, most notably their refusal to discuss what we actually need to discuss, namely the future relationship. Negotiations on that should have started in 2016, before we started discussing the transitional arrangements to get there, but they adamantly refused to do so. I'm not sure what the UK could have done better in that respect, given that our counter-party didn't act in good faith, or even within the narrow terms of Article 50.
The biggest naivety was assuming the EU, or indeed any other trading partner, will make things easy for us. In fact it was hubris rather than naivety. We've stuck two fingers up to the EU and then expected them to give us an easy ride.
Well, I can't speak for Leavers, but as someone who voted Remain (and who spent a lot of time here pulling apart the Brexit case before the referendum), I must say I wasn't expecting the EU to be so vindictive and inflexible, and to endanger their own economies so grossly, simply because we exercised our right under the Treaties to seek an amicable exit.
As someone who voted Remain, I had a low opinion of the EU before the referendum vote and they have lived down to my expectations.
I had an even lower opinion of those campaigning for Leave and their conduct since the referendum has managed to reduce that even further.
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
No club would allow non-members all the benefits with none of the obligations. Why on earth would Leavers assume otherwise?
Because they were naive. That doesn't make the EU's behaviour any less disgraceful, most notably their refusal to discuss what we actually need to discuss, namely the future relationship. Negotiations on that should have started in 2016, before we started discussing the transitional arrangements to get there, but they adamantly refused to do so. I'm not sure what the UK could have done better in that respect, given that our counter-party didn't act in good faith, or even within the narrow terms of Article 50.
The biggest naivety was assuming the EU, or indeed any other trading partner, will make things easy for us. In fact it was hubris rather than naivety. We've stuck two fingers up to the EU and then expected them to give us an easy ride.
Well, I can't speak for Leavers, but as someone who voted Remain (and who spent a lot of time here pulling apart the Brexit case before the referendum), I must say I wasn't expecting the EU to be so vindictive and inflexible, and to endanger their own economies so grossly, simply because we exercised our right under the Treaties to seek an amicable exit.
It's not the exit they are making difficult, it is the post-exit relationship they are playing hard-ball over.
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
The money is our outstanding debts that we would have paid in the course of our membership.
They are treating us like members because we ARE members. Brexit is next March, not two years ago. Nonetheless, in some aspects they have to start treating us like non-members because these things take time and not at the flick of a switch.
Leaving is a process and we have begin it. We will get less and less benefit from the EU and more and more treatment due a third country.
I am a Remainer. The whole mess sickens me, but I will be d*mned if I will let the Leavers abdicate responsibility for the mess they created.
It's not the exit they are making difficult, it is the post-exit relationship they are playing hard-ball over.
Indeed so - and that's DESPITE the fact that we've already agreed to pay them megabucks to which they have no clear legal right. 'Bad faith' describes it very well, but they are clearly over-playing their hand.
As for those criticising Mrd May for triggering Article 50 too early, it's an absurd criticism. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake, and repeatedly requested the EU to open preliminary negotiations to discuss the future relationship . They refused point-blank, so what would have been gained by delaying yet further?
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
No club would allow non-members all the benefits with none of the obligations. Why on earth would Leavers assume otherwise?
Because they were naive. That doesn't make the EU's behaviour any less disgraceful, most notably their refusal to discuss what we actually need to discuss, namely the future relationship. Negotiations on that should have started in 2016, before we started discussing the transitional arrangements to get there, but they adamantly refused to do so. I'm not sure what the UK could have done better in that respect, given that our counter-party didn't act in good faith, or even within the narrow terms of Article 50.
The biggest naivety was assuming the EU, or indeed any other trading partner, will make things easy for us. In fact it was hubris rather than naivety. We've stuck two fingers up to the EU and then expected them to give us an easy ride.
Well, I can't speak for Leavers, but as someone who voted Remain (and who spent a lot of time here pulling apart the Brexit case before the referendum), I must say I wasn't expecting the EU to be so vindictive and inflexible, and to endanger their own economies so grossly, simply because we exercised our right under the Treaties to seek an amicable exit.
As someone who voted Remain, I had a low opinion of the EU before the referendum vote and they have lived down to my expectations.
I had an even lower opinion of those campaigning for Leave and their conduct since the referendum has managed to reduce that even further.
Both you and Richard are quite good representatives of the soft-Eurosceptic consensus that led us to Brexit and was defeated in 2016.
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
No club would allow non-members all the benefits with none of the obligations. Why on earth would Leavers assume otherwise?
Because they were naive. That doesn't make the EU's behaviour any less disgraceful, most notably their refusal to discuss what we actually need to discuss, namely the future relationship. Negotiations on that should have started in 2016, before we started discussing the transitional arrangements to get there, but they adamantly refused to do so. I'm not sure what the UK could have done better in that respect, given that our counter-party didn't act in good faith, or even within the narrow terms of Article 50.
The biggest naivety was assuming the EU, or indeed any other trading partner, will make things easy for us. In fact it was hubris rather than naivety. We've stuck two fingers up to the EU and then expected them to give us an easy ride.
Well, I can't speak for Leavers, but as someone who voted Remain (and who spent a lot of time here pulling apart the Brexit case before the referendum), I must say I wasn't expecting the EU to be so vindictive and inflexible, and to endanger their own economies so grossly, simply because we exercised our right under the Treaties to seek an amicable exit.
Yes, the Leavers bet the farm on the EU's being both benevolent and pliable. It was astonishingly naive and a reckless gamble. The Leavers should have been aware of the brutal realities; instead their heads were permanently in the clouds and filled with fluffy thoughts.
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
No club would allow non-members all the benefits with none of the obligations. Why on earth would Leavers assume otherwise?
Because they were naive. That doesn't make the EU's behaviour any less disgraceful, most notably their refusal to discuss what we actually need to discuss, namely the future relationship. Negotiations on that should have started in 2016, before we started discussing the transitional arrangements to get there, but they adamantly refused to do so. I'm not sure what the UK could have done better in that respect, given that our counter-party didn't act in good faith, or even within the narrow terms of Article 50.
The biggest naivety was assuming the EU, or indeed any other trading partner, will make things easy for us. In fact it was hubris rather than naivety. We've stuck two fingers up to the EU and then expected them to give us an easy ride.
Well, I can't speak for Leavers, but as someone who voted Remain (and who spent a lot of time here pulling apart the Brexit case before the referendum), I must say I wasn't expecting the EU to be so vindictive and inflexible, and to endanger their own economies so grossly, simply because we exercised our right under the Treaties to seek an amicable exit.
Weren't you? I was. It's one of the reasons I voted Remain. They are notorious for following rules only when it suits them, but when it really suits them, not bending a muscle. That's also one of the reasons why I don't like or rate them. It's also why Juncker fits right in, of course.
It's not the exit they are making difficult, it is the post-exit relationship they are playing hard-ball over.
Indeed so - and that's DESPITE the fact that we've already agreed to pay them megabucks to which they have no clear legal right. 'Bad faith' describes it very well, but they are clearly over-playing their hand.
As for those criticising Mrd May for triggering Article 50 too early, it's an absurd criticism. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake, and repeatedly requested the EU to open preliminary negotiations to discuss the future relationship . They refused point-blank, so what would have been gained by delaying yet further?
Getting our ducks in a row with non-EU relationships.
It's not the exit they are making difficult, it is the post-exit relationship they are playing hard-ball over.
Indeed so - and that's DESPITE the fact that we've already agreed to pay them megabucks to which they have no clear legal right. 'Bad faith' describes it very well, but they are clearly over-playing their hand.
As for those criticising Mrd May for triggering Article 50 too early, it's an absurd criticism. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake, and repeatedly requested the EU to open preliminary negotiations to discuss the future relationship . They refused point-blank, so what would have been gained by delaying yet further?
Getting our ducks in a row with non-EU relationships.
Nothing much could (or indeed can now) be done on that without knowing the shape of our final relationship with the EU.
I fully expected the EU to behave like a bunch of arrogant arseholes during the Brexit negotiations. Just one of the reasons I voted Leave.
What baffles me is why Remainers want to stay in a union run by these tw@ts?
Because I think they'll be much worse without our moderating influence (as we have already seen with the appointment of Selmayr) and considerably more dangerous to our economic interests as a result.
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
No club would allow non-members all the benefits with none of the obligations. Why on earth would Leavers assume otherwise?
Because they were naive. That doesn't make the EU's behaviour any less disgraceful, most notably their refusal to discuss what we actually need to discuss, namely the future relationship. Negotiations on that should have started in 2016, before we started discussing the transitional arrangements to get there, but they adamantly refused to do so. I'm not sure what the UK could have done better in that respect, given that our counter-party didn't act in good faith, or even within the narrow terms of Article 50.
The biggest naivety was assuming the EU, or indeed any other trading partner, will make things easy for us. In fact it was hubris rather than naivety. We've stuck two fingers up to the EU and then expected them to give us an easy ride.
Well, I can't speak for Leavers, but as someone who voted Remain (and who spent a lot of time here pulling apart the Brexit case before the referendum), I must say I wasn't expecting the EU to be so vindictive and inflexible, and to endanger their own economies so grossly, simply because we exercised our right under the Treaties to seek an amicable exit.
Yes, the Leavers bet the farm on the EU's being both benevolent and pliable. It was astonishingly naive and a reckless gamble. The Leavers should have been aware of the brutal realities; instead their heads were permanently in the clouds and filled with fluffy thoughts.
So basically we should stay in the EU out of fear? What kind of dismal future is that?
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
Whether you are a sensible Remainer or not, this misunderstands the nature of the EU. They run a system. The question is how we can be part of that system without being voting members. We have the option of no access but that doesn't work for us. The EU isn't going to change the way it does anything at all to accommodate an ex member.
When the Leave promises are largely shown to be fiction, as they surely will, it will undoubtedly be someone else's fault.
It already is. The Leavers on here are already bleating that the EU is treating us like.... well.... non-members.
No, the criticism from Leavers (and some sensible Remainers, modesty prevents me from enumerating them all) is that the EU wants to continue to impose the restrictions of membership on us even though we're supposed to be leaving. If they were treating us like non-members they wouldn't expect any dosh, they wouldn't be trying to impose EU regulations on us, and they wouldn't be trying to tell us to stick a border down the Irish Sea.
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
No club would allow non-members all the benefits with none of the obligations. Why on earth would Leavers assume otherwise?
Because they were naive. That doesn't make the EU's behaviour any less disgraceful, most notably their refusal to discuss what we actually need to discuss, namely the future relationship. Negotiations on that should have started in 2016, before we started discussing the transitional arrangements to get there, but they adamantly refused to do so. I'm not sure what the UK could have done better in that respect, given that our counter-party didn't act in good faith, or even within the narrow terms of Article 50.
The biggest naivety was assuming the EU, or indeed any other trading partner, will make things easy for us. In fact it was hubris rather than naivety. We've stuck two fingers up to the EU and then expected them to give us an easy ride.
Well, I can't speak for Leavers, but as someone who voted Remain (and who spent a lot of time here pulling apart the Brexit case before the referendum), I must say I wasn't expecting the EU to be so vindictive and inflexible, and to endanger their own economies so grossly, simply because we exercised our right under the Treaties to seek an amicable exit.
Yes, the Leavers bet the farm on the EU's being both benevolent and pliable. It was astonishingly naive and a reckless gamble. The Leavers should have been aware of the brutal realities; instead their heads were permanently in the clouds and filled with fluffy thoughts.
So basically we should stay in the EU out of fear? What kind of dismal future is that?
Yes. Probably both, definitely Labour. Perhaps I'm cynical but it doesn't look like it is falling apart, just that more are noticing they are claiming to be all things on the issue. But if no one is leaving the party over it then it's immaterial.
Labour is fortunate that it is not in power, and is very unlikely to be in power before March 2019. As such, its internal contradictions on Brexit policy don't really matter. That may change once it does matter - in an election or, even more, in office - but for the time being, as long as they're largely politically powerless on the issue, they'll get away with it.
Indeed so. Tories clinging to the haphazard nature of Labour's positioning are really pinning a lot more on it than they should.
I fully expected the EU to behave like a bunch of arrogant arseholes during the Brexit negotiations. Just one of the reasons I voted Leave.
What baffles me is why Remainers want to stay in a union run by these tw@ts?
We hold all the aces, they need us more than we need them, and no deal is better than a bad deal.
I don't personally agree with any of those points, but I find it odd you are using it to mock those who do, since you agree with the last one as well (on the basis a short sharp shock from it is a necessary thing), as do a great many people, remainer and leaver, which is why they come close to outright lying while saying how bad no deal would be, while being perfectly content to risk it. Indeed, one of the few people who does not believe that last one is May, and she gets a lot of shit for it, deservedly or not.
Comments
Oh wait... is it because they need us more than we need them?
"I enjoy six months on the Algarve each winter with reciprocal healthcare"
"He comes over here stealing our jobs and filling our schools"
A very poor piece of politics by Cameron. On which, to be fair, he was most likey badly advised by the FO/CS. He could be pretty much king of all he surveyed now, preparing to step down as PM with the UK-EU relationship settled and a glorious legacy.
And having taken an ocean of cash to depart my previous employer I have plenty of time to spend doing laps at the gym.
But that's it. There aren't enough rabid dedicated Trump supporters. Anti-Trumpers are also rabid and dedicated. Come 2020 the Rustbelt soft-Trump voters from 2016 who are not seeing any benefit to this strong economy are not going to come out to vote for Trump and any economic slow down will turn soft-Trump into soft-GenericDem voters.
(and I say that as someone who, unfashionably, liked Clinton as a candidate).
And still the winter timetable insists on looping the airport trains round Oxford Road, Britain's most delay prone station, rather than reversing at Piccadilly as the Sheffield trains do and as ours used to. Curse the Ordeal Chord.
I was hoping the faster trains would be able catch up a few more of the delays.
On the other hand I get the sense that Northern have stabilized things a lot in many places.
That they couldn't find a way to keep the UK onboard is a black mark against their entire political endeavour.
Platform 13/14 was packed and there were an awful lot of passengers trying to get off.
I stick to TPE from Platform 6/9
For what it's worth, I don't think it will make much difference – the fact that you would vote Remain now will mean you will be inevitably cast by our Brexitist friends as a 'Remoaner', 'Quisling' or 'Traitor', or whatever the preferred epithet is du jour.
A row over migration has broken out in the top ranks of Germany’s resurgent Green party as a poll showed that it had achieved its highest level of popularity in seven years.
The leadership distanced itself from the Greens’ most successful elected politician, who described “hordes of young, testosterone-driven men” from overseas as “the most dangerous thing human evolution has produced”."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/outspoken-green-winfried-kretschmann-angers-party-with-migrant-claim-t77gsbdrr
https://www.globalrailnews.com/2016/03/14/uk-trains-no-longer-required-to-have-yellow-front-ends/
https://www.rssb.co.uk/Pages/visibility-of-trains-what-is-changing.aspx
The Democrats still need to pick the right person, though.
Good luck with that one...
Qualified maths teacher can't find work.
Hmmmm
Lord Lester must have done something pretty bad to get a four year suspension.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/12/jacob-rees-mogg-and-boris-johnson-join-fobt-rebellion
Compare and contrast Toby Young, who was put forward for a job for no better reason than he was a mate of the Johnsons.
Cameron should have accepted the changes and then kept negotiating. Even better, he should have put the UK into the Euro and then demand that, with the financial weight of the City, the UK should have an immense say in fiscal policy.
He who pays the piper calls the tune ...
Their attitude is very much that they want to 'avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'.
(Possibly only beaten in the history of modern international negotiating by Theresa May's follow up.....)
We allowed our Press to vilify the EU for decades. Our govt used Brussels as a whipping boy for all their unpopular policies and headlines. We voted out. Our govt triggered A50.
We did this to ourselves.
Instead, they have played into the hands of those who had deep misgivings about their whole Mafia-family venture....
I had an even lower opinion of those campaigning for Leave and their conduct since the referendum has managed to reduce that even further.
They are treating us like members because we ARE members. Brexit is next March, not two years ago. Nonetheless, in some aspects they have to start treating us like non-members because these things take time and not at the flick of a switch.
Leaving is a process and we have begin it. We will get less and less benefit from the EU and more and more treatment due a third country.
I am a Remainer. The whole mess sickens me, but I will be d*mned if I will let the Leavers abdicate responsibility for the mess they created.
As for those criticising Mrd May for triggering Article 50 too early, it's an absurd criticism. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake, and repeatedly requested the EU to open preliminary negotiations to discuss the future relationship . They refused point-blank, so what would have been gained by delaying yet further?
"avoir labeur et l'argent du beurre"
I see it is Boles' tripe idea, fair play to Jo Johnson for demolishing it (I think !)
(It's not their fault, of course).
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-fiona-onasanya-denies-lying-to-police-over-speeding-offence-11552650
Answer at the end of the week.
I think they should settle MS now !
What baffles me is why Remainers want to stay in a union run by these tw@ts?
We hold all the aces, they need us more than we need them, and no deal is better than a bad deal.
Traitorous pig-dog (defector) is solely reserved to be used towards Leavers and Mark Reckless in particular.
Is funny reading the comments from August/September 2014.
So basically we should stay in the EU out of fear? What kind of dismal future is that?
Whether you are a sensible Remainer or not, this misunderstands the nature of the EU. They run a system. The question is how we can be part of that system without being voting members. We have the option of no access but that doesn't work for us. The EU isn't going to change the way it does anything at all to accommodate an ex member.
https://twitter.com/hijakejohnstone/status/1061969640874827776