I'm aware of that, Joff. I'm also aware two years simply wasn't long enough to sort everything out. But since the EU point blank refused to engage in advance of the A50 notice and the imbecilic Lord Kerr was more clueless than Seumas Milne in an economics forum, we've had this huge rush job to do everything in two years.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’sthemselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
There is however a problem with that argument and that is it seems unlikely to function effectively in Amsterdam either. One quarter of their staff have left, and most of the big research centres are still in the UK.
It's like everything else with
The approach of a No Deal Brexit shows that the decision to rush was exactly right.
No deal Brexit is approaching because everything has been done too fast. So actually it tends to undermine your point.
Not really. It is approaching because Mrs May triggered Article 50. It was only then that the EMA gave notice of its departure.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
No the EU could have been creative and thoughtful
That would have been a dramatic break with tradition. It would have been like Dura Ace posting without swearing, or Corbyn saying something nice about Jews.
I thought Henry VII was 'right of conquest', battlefield coronation and so on. And hadn't George I been designated ever since Anne's surviving child died?
Yes, but according to primogeniture he was from the junior line, not the senior line. The Act of Settlement however disinherited all his older cousins including James II's son and settled the crown on the only other Protestant, Sophia of Hanover (whose son George was).
And the reason Henry was able to claim the crown or even win the battle was because the nobles, most importantly Stanley and Northumberland, backed him as King ahead of Richard. Something to do with Richard's nephews having vanished...
In Stanley’s case I thought it was Liverpool that persuaded him to back Henry?
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’sthemselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
There is however a problem with that argument and that is it seems unlikely to function effectively in Amsterdam either. One quarter of their staff have left, and most of the big research centres are still in the UK.
It's like everything else with
The approach of a No Deal Brexit shows that the decision to rush was exactly right.
No deal Brexit is approaching because everything has been done too fast. So actually it tends to undermine your point.
Not really. It is approaching because Mrs May triggered Article 50. It was only then that the EMA gave notice of its departure.
I'm aware of that, Joff. I'm also aware two years simply wasn't long enough to sort everything out. But since the EU point blank refused to engage in advance of the A50 notice and the imbecilic Lord Kerr was more clueless than Seumas Milne in an economics forum, we've had this huge rush job to do everything in two years.
It's madness.
Yes, we have. We should have done a lot more planning before A50 was triggered.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
No the EU could have been creative and thoughtful
No, we told them to fuck off, so they fucked off.
Its almost as if they understood and planned for Brexit, the devious swine!
I thought Henry VII was 'right of conquest', battlefield coronation and so on. And hadn't George I been designated ever since Anne's surviving child died?
Yes, but according to primogeniture he was from the junior line, not the senior line. The Act of Settlement however disinherited all his older cousins including James II's son and settled the crown on the only other Protestant, Sophia of Hanover (whose son George was).
And the reason Henry was able to claim the crown or even win the battle was because the nobles, most importantly Stanley and Northumberland, backed him as King ahead of Richard. Something to do with Richard's nephews having vanished...
In Stanley’s case I thought it was Liverpool that persuaded him to back Henry?
Liverpool the person, or Liverpool the place?
In any case, I don't think Stanley required much persuading to turn against a man who had arrested him (wounding him in the process) murdered one of his friends (Hastings) kidnapped and probably murdered his king (Edward V) tried to seize his wife's lands and finally was threatening to murder Stanley's son.
His immortal reply when ordered to join the battle or Lord Strange got it was, 'I don't feel like fighting and I have other sons.' That's not the words of a man who had to be persuaded!
I'm aware of that, Joff. I'm also aware two years simply wasn't long enough to sort everything out. But since the EU point blank refused to engage in advance of the A50 notice and the imbecilic Lord Kerr was more clueless than Seumas Milne in an economics forum, we've had this huge rush job to do everything in two years.
It's madness.
Yes, we have. We should have done a lot more planning before A50 was triggered.
Such as what? What could we have planned for until we had some idea of what they were going to say and do? And how did we get that if they didn't talk to us?
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
No the EU could have been creative and thoughtful
The red lines that Mrs May drew made very clear that EU law would cease to apply in the UK. That automatically precluded any EU institutions from being located in the UK.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
No the EU could have been creative and thoughtful
You can have the EU in any colour you want, as long as it is "Rigid and Paranoid"......
(never the most popular shade off the Farrow and Ball colour chart)
I'm aware of that, Joff. I'm also aware two years simply wasn't long enough to sort everything out. But since the EU point blank refused to engage in advance of the A50 notice and the imbecilic Lord Kerr was more clueless than Seumas Milne in an economics forum, we've had this huge rush job to do everything in two years.
It's madness.
Did we have to state the date we did. That is, could we have said we're leaving on, for example 29th March 2022?
I'm aware of that, Joff. I'm also aware two years simply wasn't long enough to sort everything out. But since the EU point blank refused to engage in advance of the A50 notice and the imbecilic Lord Kerr was more clueless than Seumas Milne in an economics forum, we've had this huge rush job to do everything in two years.
It's madness.
Yes, we have. We should have done a lot more planning before A50 was triggered.
Er, you reckon? What, like figuring out what we want and what could actually be delivered in two years.
Instead we took the bluff, bluster and bore approach.
Fox and Davis bluffing with 100s of fictional trade deals. Boris blustering with speeches but no actual work. Mays dead hand boring everyone into submission.
I'm aware of that, Joff. I'm also aware two years simply wasn't long enough to sort everything out. But since the EU point blank refused to engage in advance of the A50 notice and the imbecilic Lord Kerr was more clueless than Seumas Milne in an economics forum, we've had this huge rush job to do everything in two years.
It's madness.
Yes, we have. We should have done a lot more planning before A50 was triggered.
Such as what? What could we have planned for until we had some idea of what they were going to say and do? And how did we get that if they didn't talk to us?
Probably the most useful bit of planning would have been to have cross party talks on agreed Brexit detination. The decision on WTO or Norway++++ should have been debated and agreed then. A Deal would have been much easier if all parties had had a role in it. We should not still be debating that with 9 weeks to go.
I'm aware of that, Joff. I'm also aware two years simply wasn't long enough to sort everything out. But since the EU point blank refused to engage in advance of the A50 notice and the imbecilic Lord Kerr was more clueless than Seumas Milne in an economics forum, we've had this huge rush job to do everything in two years.
It's madness.
Yes, we have. We should have done a lot more planning before A50 was triggered.
Such as what? What could we have planned for until we had some idea of what they were going to say and do? And how did we get that if they didn't talk to us?
For a start, Mrs May could have taken the time to understand what the red lines she drew would mean for the ongoing relationship we would have with the EU. If you rule out EU law being sovereign in all circumstances, you need to think through the implications and have solutions. That quite clearly did not happen.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
No the EU could have been creative and thoughtful
The red lines that Mrs May drew made very clear that EU law would cease to apply in the UK. That automatically precluded any EU institutions from being located in the UK.
We forget how hostile Mays early rhetoric was, there were also no guarantees of eu citizens rights. How the EU was supposed be flexible in that context is bizarre. Not that the kind of flexibility sought by some here is remotely logical. We were the ones that voted to leave. This is on us.
I'm aware of that, Joff. I'm also aware two years simply wasn't long enough to sort everything out. But since the EU point blank refused to engage in advance of the A50 notice and the imbecilic Lord Kerr was more clueless than Seumas Milne in an economics forum, we've had this huge rush job to do everything in two years.
It's madness.
Yes, we have. We should have done a lot more planning before A50 was triggered.
Such as what? What could we have planned for until we had some idea of what they were going to say and do? And how did we get that if they didn't talk to us?
Probably the most useful bit of planning would have been to have cross party talks on agreed Brexit detination. The decision on WTO or Norway++++ should have been debated and agreed then. A Deal would have been much easier if all parties had had a role in it. We should not still be debating that with 9 weeks to go.
It is also very clear that either Mrs May did not take detailed advice on what the red lines she drew would mean for the UK's relationship with the EU, or she chose to ignore the advice that she was given.
I'm aware of that, Joff. I'm also aware two years simply wasn't long enough to sort everything out. But since the EU point blank refused to engage in advance of the A50 notice and the imbecilic Lord Kerr was more clueless than Seumas Milne in an economics forum, we've had this huge rush job to do everything in two years.
It's madness.
Yes, we have. We should have done a lot more planning before A50 was triggered.
Such as what? What could we have planned for until we had some idea of what they were going to say and do? And how did we get that if they didn't talk to us?
Probably the most useful bit of planning would have been to have cross party talks on agreed Brexit detination. The decision on WTO or Norway++++ should have been debated and agreed then. A Deal would have been much easier if all parties had had a role in it. We should not still be debating that with 9 weeks to go.
How quaint. You really are far too logical for the politics of today. A throwback to a more enlightened era.
I'm aware of that, Joff. I'm also aware two years simply wasn't long enough to sort everything out. But since the EU point blank refused to engage in advance of the A50 notice and the imbecilic Lord Kerr was more clueless than Seumas Milne in an economics forum, we've had this huge rush job to do everything in two years.
It's madness.
Did we have to state the date we did. That is, could we have said we're leaving on, for example 29th March 2022?
The date's set by the triggering. Article 50 specifies 2 years and out unless all 28 agree otherwise. So we could have said otherwise, but it would have been like these amendments demanding other stuff from the EU in the Commons.
The only way to set a later date would have been to trigger Article 50 later, but as no negotiations could have been held in advance of it that would have been pointless.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
No the EU could have been creative and thoughtful
No, we told them to fuck off, so they fucked off.
Nope - we talked about being friendly neighbours rather than housemates. If they found that a challenge to their worldview I’m sorry to hear it.
I thought Henry VII was 'right of conquest', battlefield coronation and so on. And hadn't George I been designated ever since Anne's surviving child died?
Yes, but according to primogeniture he was from the junior line, not the senior line. The Act of Settlement however disinherited all his older cousins including James II's son and settled the crown on the only other Protestant, Sophia of Hanover (whose son George was).
And the reason Henry was able to claim the crown or even win the battle was because the nobles, most importantly Stanley and Northumberland, backed him as King ahead of Richard. Something to do with Richard's nephews having vanished...
In Stanley’s case I thought it was Liverpool that persuaded him to back Henry?
Liverpool the person, or Liverpool the place?
In any case, I don't think Stanley required much persuading to turn against a man who had arrested him (wounding him in the process) murdered one of his friends (Hastings) kidnapped and probably murdered his king (Edward V) tried to seize his wife's lands and finally was threatening to murder Stanley's son.
His immortal reply when ordered to join the battle or Lord Strange got it was, 'I don't feel like fighting and I have other sons.' That's not the words of a man who had to be persuaded!
My understanding is that he effectively auctioned his army! Richard threatened Lord Strange. Henry offered the Port of Liverpool as an incentive (which changed Stanley from being a mid level regional noble into a national player)
I'm aware of that, Joff. I'm also aware two years simply wasn't long enough to sort everything out. But since the EU point blank refused to engage in advance of the A50 notice and the imbecilic Lord Kerr was more clueless than Seumas Milne in an economics forum, we've had this huge rush job to do everything in two years.
It's madness.
Did we have to state the date we did. That is, could we have said we're leaving on, for example 29th March 2022?
We forget how hostile Mays early rhetoric was, there were also no guarantees of eu citizens rights. How the EU was supposed be flexible in that context is bizarre. Not that the kind of flexibility sought by some here is remotely logical. We were the ones that voted to leave. This is on us.
There was also no guarantee of UK citizens' rights in the EU and the EU were demanding that EU citizens in the UK be subject to EU rather than UK law. They also refused to consider any alternative for Ireland including negotiating a trade deal first that would have eliminated the problem. They also repeatedly referred to the need to 'punish' Britain.
It might also be worth reminding people at this stage that May did indeed invite Corbyn for policy talks in June 2017 and was rebuffed.
I know it's fashionable to bash May and lionise the EU and Corbyn, but can we please stick to the facts? The EU are amply guilty and their pathetic claims to the contrary are as unconvincing as their claims that Juncker is a teetotaller. As for Corbyn, he remains a third rate liar, forger, racist, populist and bully, a less able version of Chavez.
Brexiters said it wouldn’t happen. It obviously was going to. 1000 well paid jobs move overseas. Britain loses a key component of a world-class future-facing industrial cluster (bio-medicine). Shit-for-brain Brexiters tell us its the EU’s fault.
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
No the EU could have been creative and thoughtful
The red lines that Mrs May drew made very clear that EU law would cease to apply in the UK. That automatically precluded any EU institutions from being located in the UK.
We forget how hostile Mays early rhetoric was, there were also no guarantees of eu citizens rights. How the EU was supposed be flexible in that context is bizarre. Not that the kind of flexibility sought by some here is remotely logical. We were the ones that voted to leave. This is on us.
That’s a false recollection
May’s first gambit was “let’s do a deal on EU citizens before the negotiations so they are secure in their future”.
The EU rejected reciporicity on that point outright.
Brexiters said it wouldn’t happen. It obviously was going to. 1000 well paid jobs move overseas. Britain loses a key component of a world-class future-facing industrial cluster (bio-medicine). Shit-for-brain Brexiters tell us its the EU’s fault.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
No the EU could have been creative and thoughtful
The red lines that Mrs May drew made very clear that EU law would cease to apply in the UK. That automatically precluded any EU institutions from being located in the UK.
We forget how hostile Mays early rhetoric was, there were also no guarantees of eu citizens rights. How the EU was supposed be flexible in that context is bizarre. Not that the kind of flexibility sought by some here is remotely logical. We were the ones that voted to leave. This is on us.
It is that mental rigidity and inability to listen or persuade that makes May particularly unsuitable to negotiations.
Her personal failings are what makes No Deal look inevitable.
Brexiters said it wouldn’t happen. It obviously was going to. 1000 well paid jobs move overseas. Britain loses a key component of a world-class future-facing industrial cluster (bio-medicine). Shit-for-brain Brexiters tell us its the EU’s fault.
I thought Henry VII was 'right of conquest', battlefield coronation and so on. And hadn't George I been designated ever since Anne's surviving child died?
Yes, but according to primogeniture he was from the junior line, not the senior line. The Act of Settlement however disinherited all his older cousins including James II's son and settled the crown on the only other Protestant, Sophia of Hanover (whose son George was).
And the reason Henry was able to claim the crown or even win the battle was because the nobles, most importantly Stanley and Northumberland, backed him as King ahead of Richard. Something to do with Richard's nephews having vanished...
In Stanley’s case I thought it was Liverpool that persuaded him to back Henry?
Liverpool the person, or Liverpool the place?
In any case, I don't think Stanley required much persuading to turn against a man who had arrested him (wounding him in the process) murdered one of his friends (Hastings) kidnapped and probably murdered his king (Edward V) tried to seize his wife's lands and finally was threatening to murder Stanley's son.
His immortal reply when ordered to join the battle or Lord Strange got it was, 'I don't feel like fighting and I have other sons.' That's not the words of a man who had to be persuaded!
My understanding is that he effectively auctioned his army! Richard threatened Lord Strange. Henry offered the Port of Liverpool as an incentive (which changed Stanley from being a mid level regional noble into a national player)
Stanley was not a 'mid level regional noble.' He was a member of the Protectorate council and descended from John of Gaunt by marriage - through him, the master of the palatinates of Lancaster and Chester. He was also in command of one of the largest private armies in England and King of Man.
And although he evidently despised Richard, it seems probable he was influenced by being Henry VII's stepfather...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
No the EU could have been creative and thoughtful
The red lines that Mrs May drew made very clear that EU law would cease to apply in the UK. That automatically precluded any EU institutions from being located in the UK.
We forget how
That’s a false recollection
May’s first gambit was “let’s do a deal on EU citizens before the negotiations so they are secure in their future”.
The EU rejected reciporicity on that point outright.
Each EU nation has sovereignty over its immigration and settlement policies for 3rd party nationals. It is not something the EU can decide.
Brexiters said it wouldn’t happen. It obviously was going to. 1000 well paid jobs move overseas. Britain loses a key component of a world-class future-facing industrial cluster (bio-medicine). Shit-for-brain Brexiters tell us its the EU’s fault.
Again, let's be accurate. It's 748. Otherwise, it just gives Leavers an excuse to ignore the problems.
I would remind everyone of the judge who threw out an indictment because on a careful recount the defendant had only committed the crime 143 times.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
No the EU could have been creative and thoughtful
The red lines that Mrs May drew made very clear that EU law would cease to apply in the UK. That automatically precluded any EU institutions from being located in the UK.
We forget how hostile Mays early rhetoric was, there were also no guarantees of eu citizens rights. How the EU was supposed be flexible in that context is bizarre. Not that the kind of flexibility sought by some here is remotely logical. We were the ones that voted to leave. This is on us.
It is that mental rigidity and inability to listen or persuade that makes May particularly unsuitable to negotiations.
Her personal failings are what makes No Deal look inevitable.
Both sides of the negotiations were inflexible and rigid.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
The red lines that Mrs May drew made very clear that EU law would cease to apply in the UK. That automatically precluded any EU institutions from being located in the UK.
We forget how hostile Mays early rhetoric was, there were also no guarantees of eu citizens rights. How the EU was supposed be flexible in that context is bizarre. Not that the kind of flexibility sought by some here is remotely logical. We were the ones that voted to leave. This is on us.
It is that mental rigidity and inability to listen or persuade that makes May particularly unsuitable to negotiations.
Her personal failings are what makes No Deal look inevitable.
Both sides of the negotiations were inflexible and rigid.
In some ways May wasn’t rigid enough. Exercising A50 and agreeing to sequencing were epic failures of diplomacy.
Mr. H, sometimes, chaps just want to enjoy some differential front end grip, and admire their rivals' tight rear end. There's nothing wrong with a practical application of computational fluid dynamics.
Brexiters said it wouldn’t happen. It obviously was going to. 1000 well paid jobs move overseas. Britain loses a key component of a world-class future-facing industrial cluster (bio-medicine). Shit-for-brain Brexiters tell us its the EU’s fault.
David Davis, Brexit secretary, does not accept that the two agencies and roughly 1,000 staff will have to move from London’s Canary Wharf, even though the EU is about to run a competition to relocate them.
So he didn't actually say they wouldn't leave, did he?
Brexiters said it wouldn’t happen. It obviously was going to. 1000 well paid jobs move overseas. Britain loses a key component of a world-class future-facing industrial cluster (bio-medicine). Shit-for-brain Brexiters tell us its the EU’s fault.
Brexiteers said it *shouldnt* happen
Personally I care about public health / one health on a global level. Together with regional development in the U.K. that’s what I spend 90% of my time on.
I thought Henry VII was 'right of conquest', battlefield coronation and so on. And hadn't George I been designated ever since Anne's surviving child died?
Yes, but according to primogeniture he was from the junior line, not the senior line. The Act of Settlement however disinherited all his older cousins including James II's son and settled the crown on the only other Protestant, Sophia of Hanover (whose son George was).
And the reason Henry was able to claim the crown or even win the battle was because the nobles, most importantly Stanley and Northumberland, backed him as King ahead of Richard. Something to do with Richard's nephews having vanished...
In Stanley’s case I thought it was Liverpool that persuaded him to back Henry?
Liverpool the person, or Liverpool the place?
In any case, I don't think Stanley required much persuading to turn against a man who had arrested him (wounding him in the process) murdered one of his friends (Hastings) kidnapped and probably murdered his king (Edward V) tried to seize his wife's lands and finally was threatening to murder Stanley's son.
His immortal reply when ordered to join the battle or Lord Strange got it was, 'I don't feel like fighting and I have other sons.' That's not the words of a man who had to be persuaded!
My understanding is that he effectively auctioned his army! Richard threatened Lord Strange. Henry offered the Port of Liverpool as an incentive (which changed Stanley from being a mid level regional noble into a national player)
Stanley was not a 'mid level regional noble.' He was a member of the Protectorate council and descended from John of Gaunt by marriage - through him, the master of the palatinates of Lancaster and Chester. He was also in command of one of the largest private armies in England and King of Man.
And although he evidently despised Richard, it seems probable he was influenced by being Henry VII's stepfather...
It’s a shame, unnecessarynd a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
No the EU could have been creative and thoughtful
The red lines that Mrs May drew made very clear that EU law would cease to apply in the UK. That automatically precluded any EU institutions from being located in the UK.
We forget how
That’s a false recollection
May’s first gambit was “let’s do a deal on EU citizens before the negotiations so they are secure in their future”.
The EU rejected reciporicity on that point outright.
Each EU nation has sovereignty over its immigration and settlement policies for 3rd party nationals. It is not something the EU can decide.
So then the deal they have done in the WA has no legal standing...?
I would say it is still half-time. Mr Trump has the nuclear option of declaring a state of emergency over the wall, hasn't he? He can now say that he has tried all other means before implementing it.
Brexiters said it wouldn’t happen. It obviously was going to. 1000 well paid jobs move overseas. Britain loses a key component of a world-class future-facing industrial cluster (bio-medicine). Shit-for-brain Brexiters tell us its the EU’s fault.
Again, let's be accurate. It's 748. Otherwise, it just gives Leavers an excuse to ignore the problems.
I would remind everyone of the judge who threw out an indictment because on a careful recount the defendant had only committed the crime 143 times.
Does anyone under 50 have any idea how many a "gross" is ?
Brexiters said it wouldn’t happen. It obviously was going to. 1000 well paid jobs move overseas. Britain loses a key component of a world-class future-facing industrial cluster (bio-medicine). Shit-for-brain Brexiters tell us its the EU’s fault.
Brexiteers said it *shouldnt* happen
Personally I care about public health / one health on a global level. Together with regional development in the U.K. that’s what I spend 90% of my time on.
It’s frankly weird that you advocate policies that undermine both your alleged priorities.
Brexiters said it wouldn’t happen. It obviously was going to. 1000 well paid jobs move overseas. Britain loses a key component of a world-class future-facing industrial cluster (bio-medicine). Shit-for-brain Brexiters tell us its the EU’s fault.
Again, let's be accurate. It's 748. Otherwise, it just gives Leavers an excuse to ignore the problems.
I would remind everyone of the judge who threw out an indictment because on a careful recount the defendant had only committed the crime 143 times.
Does anyone under 50 have any idea how many a "gross" is ?
I'm still recovering from someone last night soothing fears about the export of British lamb by assuring us that meat would be in such short supply in the UK that it would "fly off the shelves" here instead.
For some reason, I found this less than reassuring ...
You are right to get annoyed by people who don't understand supply and demand. And you are correct that every lamb will be sold.
But you are worryingly blase about the likely impact on farm incomes.
Let us assume that a lamb farmer today has costs of £50,000, and revenues of £100,000. (And for his costs, I'm assuming everything except his own labour.)
Now, assume that British lamb is subject to 50% tariffs going into the EU. This means that the EU will - in all likelihood - import more New Zealand lamb, and their overall consumption will fall slightly, as the cost to consumers will have risen and price elasticity of demand.
British lamb could be sold into the US or other foreign markets. But it will be competing with New Zealand lamb, and there are transport costs, and tariffs. (Especially as the UK has utterly failed to replicate existing EU agreements.)
Together this means that the clearing price for British lamb will be lower. It will need to be cheaper to either overcome tariffs in the EU (or elsewhere abroad), or it will need to be cheaper to displace beef demand.
Let us assume the right number that prices will be 20% lower. Now, this may be ameliorated somewhat by a lower pound. But, it may not. And of course certain inputs (like the cost of fuel for the farmer's Defender) will be imported, and therefore they will rise the fall in Sterling.
So, the farmer's revenues will fall £20,000, or 20%. But his income will fall 40% to £30,000. That's a pretty huge drop. And I suspect that most farmers actually run on leaner profit margins than that, especially once loans are taken into account.
Also, my number is an average. There will be sheep farmers today who are already marginal, just as there are ones who make robust profits. Some people will lose out, and will lose out badly. No Deal Brexit might - on a two decade view - result in a GDP 10% larger than would be the case if we stayed in the EU, or left with a deal. (Who knows?) But what we do know is that the sudden imposition of tariffs on certain sectors of the economy would have a pretty severe impact.
But surely as imports will be significantly more expensive he will be able to sell at the same or better price to UK buyers and therefore be at least as well off if not better as he will have no competition from New Zealand due to tariffs on their lamb, or am I missing something.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
It's all very well carping and complaining but I don't see you coming up with any better solutions.
Don’t need a solution to the Monarchy, it knits state and democracy together very nicely, certainly better than an elected president in the role, who could be some hands on extremist. Other alternative to elected presidency would be to expand and beef up the office of commons speaker, giving them extra responsibilities and power. Ha! Nuff said? We love our Queen.
I thought Henry VII was 'right of conquest', battlefield coronation and so on. And hadn't George I been designated ever since Anne's surviving child died?
Yes, but according to primogeniture he was from the junior line, not the senior line. The Act of Settlement however disinherited all his older cousins including James II's son and settled the crown on the only other Protestant, Sophia of Hanover (whose son George was).
And the reason Henry was able to claim the crown or even win the battle was because the nobles, most importantly Stanley and Northumberland, backed him as King ahead of Richard. Something to do with Richard's nephews having vanished...
In Stanley’s case I thought it was Liverpool that persuaded him to back Henry?
It was this that led we Yorkists never to trust scousers and geordies.
While there's a hefty dollop of 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrisy in that there is also a certain logic.
British people who move to other European countries tend to work in better jobs and/or be more affluent than the locals whereas people who migrate to Britain from other European countries tend to work in lower level jobs and/or be poorer.
And people generally are happier with rich and highly skilled migrants rather than poor and lower skilled migrants.
Quite right, rich people should have rights to Freedom of movement that poor people should not. Those poor folk should stay where they belong.
Which is exactly the policy governments follow all across the world.
Its a lot easier for a millionaire or a brain surgeon to migrate to another country than a poverty stricken peasant.
Yes, the irony is that @roger, @tyson and myself will all effectively keep FOM, as will the Dysons and Moggs of the world, but the Leavers who formerly retired to the Costas lose it.
They'll keep it as well.
To retire to the Costas you need money.
For that matter you need money if you retire to Clacton or Cleethorpes.
To retire to the Costas currently you need the price of an air fare, enough money to pay your rent and to live on day to day. You need money, but you don't have to be rich. Not for much longer.
To work on the Costas - as many tens of thousands of very ordinary Brits do either full-time or seasonally - you just need UK citizenship. Not for much longer.
If the oldies have money then they're richer than the Spanish locals and as long as British tourists go to Spain in their millions there will be a need for the small number of British workers there.
And why do you assume that the Spanish would change things ?
You continually tell us that countries benefit from showing goodwill - or does that only apply when you want Britain to make concessions ?
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
It's all very well carping and complaining but I don't see you coming up with any better solutions.
Don’t need a solution to the Monarchy, it knits state and democracy together very nicely, certainly better than an elected president in the role, who could be some hands on extremist. Other alternative to elected presidency would be to expand and beef up the office of commons speaker, giving them extra responsibilities and power. Ha! Nuff said? We love our Queen.
Barf
Is barf a cartoonist? In the New European or something.
I was merely pointing out how people get ideological and personal about monarchy and monarchs, but fall flat on their faces when practicalities of alternatives are discussed 😕
Comments
It's madness.
In any case, I don't think Stanley required much persuading to turn against a man who had arrested him (wounding him in the process) murdered one of his friends (Hastings) kidnapped and probably murdered his king (Edward V) tried to seize his wife's lands and finally was threatening to murder Stanley's son.
His immortal reply when ordered to join the battle or Lord Strange got it was, 'I don't feel like fighting and I have other sons.' That's not the words of a man who had to be persuaded!
(never the most popular shade off the Farrow and Ball colour chart)
Instead we took the bluff, bluster and bore approach.
Fox and Davis bluffing with 100s of fictional trade deals.
Boris blustering with speeches but no actual work.
Mays dead hand boring everyone into submission.
CREEPy.......
The only way to set a later date would have been to trigger Article 50 later, but as no negotiations could have been held in advance of it that would have been pointless.
It might also be worth reminding people at this stage that May did indeed invite Corbyn for policy talks in June 2017 and was rebuffed.
I know it's fashionable to bash May and lionise the EU and Corbyn, but can we please stick to the facts? The EU are amply guilty and their pathetic claims to the contrary are as unconvincing as their claims that Juncker is a teetotaller. As for Corbyn, he remains a third rate liar, forger, racist, populist and bully, a less able version of Chavez.
Brexiters said it wouldn’t happen.
It obviously was going to.
1000 well paid jobs move overseas.
Britain loses a key component of a world-class future-facing industrial cluster (bio-medicine).
Shit-for-brain Brexiters tell us its the EU’s fault.
May’s first gambit was “let’s do a deal on EU citizens before the negotiations so they are secure in their future”.
The EU rejected reciporicity on that point outright.
Her personal failings are what makes No Deal look inevitable.
And although he evidently despised Richard, it seems probable he was influenced by being Henry VII's stepfather...
I would remind everyone of the judge who threw out an indictment because on a careful recount the defendant had only committed the crime 143 times.
Under two months until F1 returns. Be interesting to see how a very reshuffled grid stacks up.
electionerection?(Fuck autocorrect. The only thing more useless than Corbyn's integrity.)
Brazil dam collapse: 'Little hope' of finding missing alive
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-47009118
So he didn't actually say they wouldn't leave, did he?
Personally I care about public health / one health on a global level. Together with regional development in the U.K. that’s what I spend 90% of my time on.
And why do you assume that the Spanish would change things ?
You continually tell us that countries benefit from showing goodwill - or does that only apply when you want Britain to make concessions ?
I was merely pointing out how people get ideological and personal about monarchy and monarchs, but fall flat on their faces when practicalities of alternatives are discussed 😕