'Won't somebody think of the Union?' is the latest anti-Brexit message. It's highly coordinated; and all the usual suspects have been at it. Including Hunt from the very beginning of his campaign. The Union is not going anywhere. It is not in danger from Brexit, in fact, Brexit makes it almost impossible to leave the UK in the short to medium term. Of course Brexit will enrage Scottish nationalists - what doesn't? They will not stop pushing for independence if it doesn't happen, nor will they find a more receptive audience if it does. The whole thing is one massive yawn.
If there is another referendum, and there are very plausible pathways to one, I expect independence to win. Because no-one much will argue for the Union.
I am as unionist as they come but the gig's up if the other lot don't want us. Boris et al are pretty clear the interests of Scotland (and Northern Ireland too) feature precisely nowhere on their radar. At least Theresa May cared.
The UK will fare well when it starts to feel good, and be good, to be part of the UK again. That isn't about begging, fear, or treating the different parts of the UK as special cases. We are one whole, and we rise and fall as one.
As a unionist, I feel like the man in 1919 regretting the break up of Austro-Hungary. I am fully aware the highly possible demise of the United Kingdom has its roots in the Brexit failure, just as defeat in WW1 did for Austro-Hungary.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
You won't be getting many replies to that in Gaelic.
'Won't somebody think of the Union?' is the latest anti-Brexit message. It's highly coordinated; and all the usual suspects have been at it. Including Hunt from the very beginning of his campaign. The Union is not going anywhere. It is not in danger from Brexit, in fact, Brexit makes it almost impossible to leave the UK in the short to medium term. Of course Brexit will enrage Scottish nationalists - what doesn't? They will not stop pushing for independence if it doesn't happen, nor will they find a more receptive audience if it does. The whole thing is one massive yawn.
The yawn is erses like you, thick southerners who think they are still in the empire days. We do not need some sniveling creeps from Westminster telling us what we can and cannot do.
Then become PM and sort it (and us) out. Nichola Sturgeon is one of the UK's most talented politicians. Why isn't she UK PM? No reason except then limitations she puts on herself.
Now you really are talking mince, the SNP are treated badly at Westminster, Scotland is treated with contempt by Westminster. We have just witnessed two absolute balloons, one of which will be PM, state live on media that they will ignore Scotland's wishes and cancel democracy by not allowing the democratically elected Government enact their manifesto promise. A pox on your union.
I don't agree. I think that the perception comes from inside. Nichola herself has said she has to be twice as good because she's Scottish. Alec Salmond has said Scotland is a nation of drunks. These are internal beliefs from people with deep issues about their own country.
Perhaps you would like to consider whether either the criminals or their victims would have been allowed to migrate to the UK if there wasn't unrestricted immigration.
You might also like to consider how much the whole sordid story will cost the taxpayer.
But you wont.
Because its so much easier to claim that its only Europe's 'best and brightest' who migrate to the UK or that immigrants don't put pressure on the public services.
And as I said did anyone ever imagine that the UK would have slavery and shanty towns.
Your faith in criminals' willingness to obey the law may be a little misplaced.
How many of the 24 Chinese slave-workers killed in Morecambe Bay were from the EU?
At least you are now accepting that there are criminals among those who have migrated to the UK.
Reality has reached Royal Leamington Spa.
When did I ever deny it?
There are criminals all over the world and one very basic thing unites all of them: they do not obey the law.
There are criminals everywhere but allowing them and the people they exploit to freely migrate to this country results in more of them here.
And as I've said before the people in those 60% Leave towns are seeing few of the 'best and brightest' immigrants but a lot more of the less desirable types.
British criminals emigrate. Do we know more criminals are coming in thanks to EU immigration than are leaving?
Well perhaps there are British criminals forcing vulnerable British people to pick turnips and wash cars in Poland.
But the BBC haven't reported it yet.
Now doubtless there are still a few geriatric old style villains alive on the Costa del Crime but as I remember the Spanish government were happy for them to migrate there together with their ill-gotten gains.
Is it too cynical to suspect that the authorities in Eastern Europe might be quite happy for such 'problem people' to migrate ?
More than 400 people – many of them homeless, ex-prisoners or alcoholics – were forced to work for almost nothing after being lured to the west midlands by a well-organised Polish gang.
British criminals emigrate. Do we know more criminals are coming in thanks to EU immigration than are leaving?
Costa del Crime, Kenneth Noye, Biggs, that whole Ray Winstone scene. Very unsavoury.
And very 1970s.
Ironically it was Spain's entry to the EU which forced them to stop it.
There is a thriving British gang scene on the Costas, mostly related to drug smuggling and distribution. As gangs from other countries are moving in it's getting increasingly violent.
Perhaps you would like to consider whether either the criminals or their victims would have been allowed to migrate to the UK if there wasn't unrestricted immigration.
You might also like to consider how much the whole sordid story will cost the taxpayer.
But you wont.
Because its so much easier to claim that its only Europe's 'best and brightest' who migrate to the UK or that immigrants don't put pressure on the public services.
And as I said did anyone ever imagine that the UK would have slavery and shanty towns.
Your faith in criminals' willingness to obey the law may be a little misplaced.
How many of the 24 Chinese slave-workers killed in Morecambe Bay were from the EU?
At least you are now accepting that there are criminals among those who have migrated to the UK.
Reality has reached Royal Leamington Spa.
When did I ever deny it?
There are criminals all over the world and one very basic thing unites all of them: they do not obey the law.
There are criminals everywhere but allowing them and the people they exploit to freely migrate to this country results in more of them here.
And as I've said before the people in those 60% Leave towns are seeing few of the 'best and brightest' immigrants but a lot more of the less desirable types.
British criminals emigrate. Do we know more criminals are coming in thanks to EU immigration than are leaving?
Well perhaps there are British criminals forcing vulnerable British people to pick turnips and wash cars in Poland.
But the BBC haven't reported it yet.
Now doubtless there are still a few geriatric old style villains alive on the Costa del Crime but as I remember the Spanish government were happy for them to migrate there together with their ill-gotten gains.
So, basically, you have no idea whatsoever.
Actually, of course we don’t know. Drug mules, forced money launderers, who knows. And if caught they’ll get the book thrown at them, rather than the bosses.
Perhaps you would like to consider whether either the criminals or their victims would have been allowed to migrate to the UK if there wasn't unrestricted immigration.
You might also like to consider how much the whole sordid story will cost the taxpayer.
But you wont.
Because its so much easier to claim that its only Europe's 'best and brightest' who migrate to the UK or that immigrants don't put pressure on the public services.
And as I said did anyone ever imagine that the UK would have slavery and shanty towns.
Your faith in criminals' willingness to obey the law may be a little misplaced.
How many of the 24 Chinese slave-workers killed in Morecambe Bay were from the EU?
At least you are now accepting that there are criminals among those who have migrated to the UK.
Reality has reached Royal Leamington Spa.
When did I ever deny it?
There are criminals all over the world and one very basic thing unites all of them: they do not obey the law.
There are criminals everywhere but allowing them and the people they exploit to freely migrate to this country results in more of them here.
And as I've said before the people in those 60% Leave towns are seeing few of the 'best and brightest' immigrants but a lot more of the less desirable types.
British criminals emigrate. Do we know more criminals are coming in thanks to EU immigration than are leaving?
Well perhaps there are British criminals forcing vulnerable British people to pick turnips and wash cars in Poland.
But the BBC haven't reported it yet.
Now doubtless there are still a few geriatric old style villains alive on the Costa del Crime but as I remember the Spanish government were happy for them to migrate there together with their ill-gotten gains.
So, basically, you have no idea whatsoever.
Perhaps you could give me an idea by providing some information.
I take it you have some information and are not engaged in whataboutery of things which don't actually exist.
'Won't somebody think of the Union?' is the latest anti-Brexit message. It's highly coordinated; and all the usual suspects have been at it. Including Hunt from the very beginning of his campaign. The Union is not going anywhere. It is not in danger from Brexit, in fact, Brexit makes it almost impossible to leave the UK in the short to medium term. Of course Brexit will enrage Scottish nationalists - what doesn't? They will not stop pushing for independence if it doesn't happen, nor will they find a more receptive audience if it does. The whole thing is one massive yawn.
The yawn is erses like you, thick southerners who think they are still in the empire days. We do not need some sniveling creeps from Westminster telling us what we can and cannot do.
Then become PM and sort it (and us) out. Nichola Sturgeon is one of the UK's most talented politicians. Why isn't she UK PM? No reason except then limitations she puts on herself.
Now you really are talking mince, the SNP are treated badly at Westminster, Scotland is treated with contempt by Westminster. We have just witnessed two absolute balloons, one of which will be PM, state live on media that they will ignore Scotland's wishes and cancel democracy by not allowing the democratically elected Government enact their manifesto promise. A pox on your union.
I don't agree. I think that the perception comes from inside. Nichola herself has said she has to be twice as good because she's Scottish. Alec Salmond has said Scotland is a nation of drunks. These are internal beliefs from people with deep issues about their own country.
Yep, we Scots really need to take a leaf out of the English book of entitlement, exceptionalism and self regard, just look at where it's got them today. If we work very hard we too could be in that position.
Perhaps you would like to consider whether either the criminals or their victims would have been allowed to migrate to the UK if there wasn't unrestricted immigration.
You might also like to consider how much the whole sordid story will cost the taxpayer.
But you wont.
Because services.
And shanty towns.
Your faith in criminals' willingness to obey the law may be a little misplaced.
How many of the 24 Chinese slave-workers killed in Morecambe Bay were from the EU?
At least you are now accepting that there are criminals among those who have migrated to the UK.
Reality has reached Royal Leamington Spa.
When did I ever deny it?
There are criminals all over the world and one very basic thing unites all of them: they do not obey the law.
There are criminals everywhere but allowing them and the people they exploit to freely migrate to this country results in more of them here.
And as I've said before the people in those 60% Leave towns are seeing few of the 'best and brightest' immigrants but a lot more of the less desirable types.
British criminals emigrate. Do we know more criminals are coming in thanks to EU immigration than are leaving?
Well perhaps there are British criminals forcing vulnerable British people to pick turnips and wash cars in Poland.
But the BBC haven't reported it yet.
Now doubtless there are still a few geriatric old style villains alive on the Costa del Crime but as I remember the Spanish government were happy for them to migrate there together with their ill-gotten gains.
So, basically, you have no idea whatsoever.
Perhaps you could give me an idea by providing some information.
I take it you have some information and are not engaged in whataboutery of things which don't actually exist.
British gangs are intimately involved in drug smuggling and distribution on the Costas - as well as with the violence that goes with it. Organised crime is cross-border and very mobile. It's really not very hard to find out about, if you are genuinely interested. You could start here:
'Won't somebody think of the Union?' is the latest anti-Brexit message. It's highly coordinated; and all the usual suspects have been at it. Including Hunt from the very beginning of his campaign. The Union is not going anywhere. It is not in danger from Brexit, in fact, Brexit makes it almost impossible to leave the UK in the short to medium term. Of course Brexit will enrage Scottish nationalists - what doesn't? They will not stop pushing for independence if it doesn't happen, nor will they find a more receptive audience if it does. The whole thing is one massive yawn.
If there is another referendum, and there are very plausible pathways to one, I expect independence to win. Because no-one much will argue for the Union.
I am as unionist as they come but the gig's up if the other lot don't want us. Boris et al are pretty clear the interests of Scotland (and Northern Ireland too) feature precisely nowhere on their radar. At least Theresa May cared.
The UK will fare well when it starts to feel good, and be good, to be part of the UK again. That isn't about begging, fear, or treating the different parts of the UK as special cases. We are one whole, and we rise and fall as one.
As a unionist, I feel like the man in 1919 regretting the break up of Austro-Hungary. I am fully aware the highly possible demise of the United Kingdom has its roots in the Brexit failure, just as defeat in WW1 did for Austro-Hungary.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
You won't be getting many replies to that in Gaelic.
The irony being that it was Lowland Scots who had it in for their Highland brethren and did so for centuries before the Act of Union.
'Won't somebody think of the Union?' is the latest anti-Brexit message. It's highly coordinated; and all the usual suspects have been at it. Including Hunt from the very beginning of his campaign. The Union is not going anywhere. It is not in danger from Brexit, in fact, Brexit makes it almost impossible to leave the UK in the short to medium term. Of course Brexit will enrage Scottish nationalists - what doesn't? They will not stop pushing for independence if it doesn't happen, nor will they find a more receptive audience if it does. The whole thing is one massive yawn.
If there is another referendum, and there are very plausible pathways to one, I expect independence to win. Because no-one much will argue for the Union.
I am as unionist as they come but the gig's up if the other lot don't want us. Boris et al are pretty clear the interests of Scotland (and Northern Ireland too) feature precisely nowhere on their radar. At least Theresa May cared.
The UK will fare well when it starts to feel good, and be good, to be part of the UK again. That isn't about begging, fear, or treating the different parts of the UK as special cases. We are one whole, and we rise and fall as one.
As a unionist, I feel like the man in 1919 regretting the break up of Austro-Hungary. I am fully aware the highly possible demise of the United Kingdom has its roots in the Brexit failure, just as defeat in WW1 did for Austro-Hungary.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
You won't be getting many replies to that in Gaelic.
The irony being that it was Lowland Scots who had it in for their Highland brethren and did so for centuries before the Act of Union.
Boris demonstrating his sure political touch yesterday:
”too often there are parts of our country...where English is not spoken by some people as their first language, and that needs to be changed…”
The response from the LibDem by-election candidate:
“Mae sylwadau di-glem Boris yn dangos pa mor allan o gyswllt yw e gyda Cymru ac ardaloedd fel ein rhai ni.” (Boris's unparalleled comments show how out of touch he is with Wales and areas like ours)
Boris demonstrating his sure political touch yesterday:
”too often there are parts of our country...where English is not spoken by some people as their first language, and that needs to be changed…”
The response from the LibDem by-election candidate:
“Mae sylwadau di-glem Boris yn dangos pa mor allan o gyswllt yw e gyda Cymru ac ardaloedd fel ein rhai ni.” (Boris's unparalleled comments show how out of touch he is with Wales and areas like ours)
You might imagine, as someone who is half American, he’d have a bit more of a clue about immigrant assimilation, too.
'Won't somebody think of the Union?' is the latest anti-Brexit message. It's highly coordinated; and all the usual suspects have been at it. Including Hunt from the very beginning of his campaign. The Union is not going anywhere. It is not in danger from Brexit, in fact, Brexit makes it almost impossible to leave the UK in the short to medium term. Of course Brexit will enrage Scottish nationalists - what doesn't? They will not stop pushing for independence if it doesn't happen, nor will they find a more receptive audience if it does. The whole thing is one massive yawn.
If there is another referendum, and there are very plausible pathways to one, I expect independence to win. Because no-one much will argue for the Union.
I am as unionist as they come but the gig's up if the other lot don't want us. Boris et al are pretty clear the interests of Scotland (and Northern Ireland too) feature precisely nowhere on their radar. At least Theresa May cared.
The UK will fare well when it starts to feel good, and be good, to be part of the UK again. That isn't about begging, fear, or treating the different parts of the UK as special cases. We are one whole, and we rise and fall as one.
As a unionist, I feel like the man in 1919 regretting the break up of Austro-Hungary. I am fully aware the highly possible demise of the United Kingdom has its roots in the Brexit failure, just as defeat in WW1 did for Austro-Hungary.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
You won't be getting many replies to that in Gaelic.
The irony being that it was Lowland Scots who had it in for their Highland brethren and did so for centuries before the Act of Union.
You might say that Scotland was a more successful example of state building than the UK was.
After all there are few requests for independence FROM Scotland by its original parts.
Whoever recommended ‘Vanished Kingdoms’ on here, thank you. As one who’s school history was English-centered it was an eye- and mind-opener. I had some idea of the British kingdoms in Strathclyde and Cumbria, but this developed my understanding.
I can see the plan clearly now. In order to avoid the situation where as an old person you struggle to come to terms with the increased wealth of following generations, through technology and productivity gains, we crash the economy so badly that this wont happen in next 30 years.
'Won't somebody think of the Union?' is the latest anti-Brexit message. It's highly coordinated; and all the usual suspects have been at it. Including Hunt from the very beginning of his campaign. The Union is not going anywhere. It is not in danger from Brexit, in fact, Brexit makes it almost impossible to leave the UK in the short to medium term. Of course Brexit will enrage Scottish nationalists - what doesn't? They will not stop pushing for independence if it doesn't happen, nor will they find a more receptive audience if it does. The whole thing is one massive yawn.
If there is another referendum, and there are very plausible pathways to one, I expect independence to win. Because no-one much will argue for the Union.
I am as unionist as they come but the gig's up if the other lot don't want us. Boris et al are pretty clear the interests of Scotland (and Northern Ireland too) feature precisely nowhere on their radar. At least Theresa May cared.
The UK will fare well when it starts to feel good, and be good, to be part of the UK again. That isn't about begging, fear, or treating the different parts of the UK as special cases. We are one whole, and we rise and fall as one.
As a unionist, I feel like the man in 1919 regretting the break up of Austro-Hungary. I am fully aware the highly possible demise of the United Kingdom has its roots in the Brexit failure, just as defeat in WW1 did for Austro-Hungary.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
You won't be getting many replies to that in Gaelic.
The irony being that it was Lowland Scots who had it in for their Highland brethren and did so for centuries before the Act of Union.
At least you are now accepting that there are criminals among those who have migrated to the UK.
Reality has reached Royal Leamington Spa.
When did I ever deny it?
There are criminals all over the world and one very basic thing unites all of them: they do not obey the law.
There are criminals everywhere but allowing them and the people they exploit to freely migrate to this country results in more of them here.
And as I've said before the people in those 60% Leave towns are seeing few of the 'best and brightest' immigrants but a lot more of the less desirable types.
British criminals emigrate. Do we know more criminals are coming in thanks to EU immigration than are leaving?
Well perhaps there are British criminals forcing vulnerable British people to pick turnips and wash cars in Poland.
But the BBC haven't reported it yet.
Now doubtless there are still a few geriatric old style villains alive on the Costa del Crime but as I remember the Spanish government were happy for them to migrate there together with their ill-gotten gains.
So, basically, you have no idea whatsoever.
Perhaps you could give me an idea by providing some information.
I take it you have some information and are not engaged in whataboutery of things which don't actually exist.
British gangs are intimately involved in drug smuggling and distribution on the Costas - as well as with the violence that goes with it. Organised crime is cross-border and very mobile. It's really not very hard to find out about, if you are genuinely interested. You could start here:
The Commons will likely VONC Boris before the autumn given he has not ruled out No Deal, Boris then wins a majority on a pre October general election on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform by October 31st
Yes, I think that general scenario is quite likely now although in terms of practical timetabling the GE might have been called before 31st October but held after then, with the Commons having blocked departure in the meantime. In some ways that might work better for Johnson than if the Commons had not definitely blocked departure. The question is whether Johnson can secure a workable majority but he certainly will have removed the existential threat from the Brexit Party by pursuing that course.
If Johnson succeeds I think that "No Deal" would be a very short term state and unlikely to last beyond the end of 2019. The EU will not want that state to last any more than the UK and a longer term deal of in the interests of both parties would follow quickly. That is in contrast to the position up to now where the EU has chosen to play hardball in the hope that the UK will either chose to remain or accept May's abject "Deal" that would settle next to nothing other than to strengthen the EU's position in the negotiations that would follow.
No discussions on post no deal departures on future trade deals until U.K. pays its debts, resolves EU citizens rights and accepts the backstop.
And you are taking them at their word.
It seems a reasonable position. To do otherwise would be akin to driving without insurance because you know you’re a better driver than everybody else.
If you want a driving analogy, the UK's negotiating position to date has been akin to a couple approaching a UK used car salesman, telling them that we are desperate to buy one of their cars and asking them to name their price and choose the car. They've selected an old banger which is just as bad as the clapped out model which they sold us previously at an inflated price and which we're still driving now. We've been asked to sign the cheque for the deal with a promise that the test drive will be fine, but the salesman has insisted on a legal provision that waives all our of rights if it is not.
When the purchaser at the last minute discloses that they are having second thought and wondering about engaging someone else to negotiate for them, the used car salesman insists that those terms will not be negotiated even if the purchaser walks away and he loses the deal.
You choose to believe the used car salesman. I choose not to. I realise that I might need to walk away, while telling the salesman that he can call me when he is prepared to offer something better.
'Won't somebody think of the Union?' is the latest anti-Brexit message. It's highly coordinated; and all the usual suspects have been at it. Including Hunt from the very beginning of his campaign. The Union is not going anywhere. It is not in danger from Brexit, in fact, Brexit makes it almost impossible to leave the UK in the short to medium term. Of course Brexit will enrage Scottish nationalists - what doesn't? They will not stop pushing for independence if it doesn't happen, nor will they find a more receptive audience if it does. The whole thing is one massive yawn.
If there is another referendum, and there are very plausible pathways to one, I expect independence to win. Because no-one much will argue for the Union.
I am as unionist as they come but the gig's up if the other lot don't want us. Boris et al are pretty clear the interests of Scotland (and Northern Ireland too) feature precisely nowhere on their radar. At least Theresa May cared.
The UK will fare well when it starts to feel good, and be good, to be part of the UK again. That isn't about begging, fear, or treating the different parts of the UK as special cases. We are one whole, and we rise and fall as one.
As a unionist, I feel like the man in 1919 regretting the break up of Austro-Hungary. I am fully aware the highly possible demise of the United Kingdom has its roots in the Brexit failure, just as defeat in WW1 did for Austro-Hungary.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
You won't be getting many replies to that in Gaelic.
The irony being that it was Lowland Scots who had it in for their Highland brethren and did so for centuries before the Act of Union.
You might say that Scotland was a more successful example of state building than the UK was.
After all there are few requests for independence FROM Scotland by its original parts.
I think even Lowland Gàidhealtachdphobes would be astounded at the success of the Union in eradicating Gaelic, reducing it from being spoken by more than a fifth of Scots at the time of the Acts of Proscription to only 1% today.
At least you are now accepting that there are criminals among those who have migrated to the UK.
Reality has reached Royal Leamington Spa.
When did I ever deny it?
There are criminals all over the world and one very basic thing unites all of them: they do not obey the law.
There are criminals everywhere but allowing them and the people they exploit to freely migrate to this country results in more of them here.
And as I've said before the people in those 60% Leave towns are seeing few of the 'best and brightest' immigrants but a lot more of the less desirable types.
British criminals emigrate. Do we know more criminals are coming in thanks to EU immigration than are leaving?
Well perhaps there are British criminals forcing vulnerable British people to pick turnips and wash cars in Poland.
But the BBC haven't reported it yet.
Now doubtless there are still a few geriatric old style villains alive on the Costa del Crime but as I remember the Spanish government were happy for them to migrate there together with their ill-gotten gains.
So, basically, you have no idea whatsoever.
Perhaps you could give me an idea by providing some information.
I take it you have some information and are not engaged in whataboutery of things which don't actually exist.
Yes there are worldwide criminal activities and drugs are always prominent, we all know that.
But what we also have in this country is the free migration of criminal gangs and the vulnerable victims they exploit.
While being told that the immigrants from the EU are Europe's 'best and brightest' and don't put extra pressures on the public services.
And as I keep saying those 60% Leave towns see few of those 'best and brightest' but a great deal more of the less desirable immigrants.
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Boris demonstrating his sure political touch yesterday:
”too often there are parts of our country...where English is not spoken by some people as their first language, and that needs to be changed…”
The response from the LibDem by-election candidate:
“Mae sylwadau di-glem Boris yn dangos pa mor allan o gyswllt yw e gyda Cymru ac ardaloedd fel ein rhai ni.” (Boris's unparalleled comments show how out of touch he is with Wales and areas like ours)
Kudos to the LD for that reply. Also shows Boris doesn't have a clue what "first language" actually means.
The Commons will likely VONC Boris before the autumn given he has not ruled out No Deal, Boris then wins a majority on a pre October general election on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform by October 31st
If Johnson succeeds I think that "No Deal" would be a very short term state and unlikely to last beyond the end of 2019. The EU will not want that state to last any more than the UK and a longer term deal of in the interests of both parties would follow quickly. That is in contrast to the position up to now where the EU has chosen to play hardball in the hope that the UK will either chose to remain or accept May's abject "Deal" that would settle next to nothing other than to strengthen the EU's position in the negotiations that would follow.
No discussions on post no deal departures on future trade deals until U.K. pays its debts, resolves EU citizens rights and accepts the backstop.
And you are taking them at their word.
It seems a reasonable position. To do otherwise would be akin to driving without insurance because you know you’re a better driver than everybody else.
If you want a driving analogy, the UK's negotiating position to date has been akin to a couple approaching a UK used car salesman, telling them that we are desperate to buy one of their cars and asking them to name their price and choose the car. They've selected an old banger which is just as bad as the clapped out model which they sold us previously at an inflated price and which we're still driving now. We've been asked to sign the cheque for the deal with a promise that the test drive will be fine, but the salesman has insisted on a legal provision that waives all our of rights if it is not.
When the purchaser at the last minute discloses that they are having second thought and wondering about engaging someone else to negotiate for them, the used car salesman insists that those terms will not be negotiated even if the purchaser walks away and he loses the deal.
You choose to believe the used car salesman. I choose not to. I realise that I might need to walk away, while telling the salesman that he can call me when he is prepared to offer something better.
No, I don’t want any analogies. They are invariably obfuscatory or irrelevant, whether deliberately so or not.
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Is there a reason we need to keep it on balance? Is there a reason we can't continue to get the ones who continue to get the ones who put in more than they take out, are well educated and well-qualified without providing free movement to those who take more than they put in, are uneducated and unqualified?
If I employ a group of people and on balance most of them are educated, qualified and trustworthy but one is an untrustworthy thief then I will get rid of the thief rather than shrug my shoulders and say on balance I'm OK.
If there is another referendum, and there are very plausible pathways to one, I expect independence to win. Because no-one much will argue for the Union.
I am as unionist as they come but the gig's up if the other lot don't want us. Boris et al are pretty clear the interests of Scotland (and Northern Ireland too) feature precisely nowhere on their radar. At least Theresa May cared.
The UK will fare well when it starts to feel good, and be good, to be part of the UK again. That isn't about begging, fear, or treating the different parts of the UK as special cases. We are one whole, and we rise and fall as one.
As a unionist, I feel like the man in 1919 regretting the break up of Austro-Hungary. I am fully aware the highly possible demise of the United Kingdom has its roots in the Brexit failure, just as defeat in WW1 did for Austro-Hungary.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
You won't be getting many replies to that in Gaelic.
The irony being that it was Lowland Scots who had it in for their Highland brethren and did so for centuries before the Act of Union.
You might say that Scotland was a more successful example of state building than the UK was.
After all there are few requests for independence FROM Scotland by its original parts.
I think even Lowland Gàidhealtachdphobes would be astounded at the success of the Union in eradicating Gaelic, reducing it from being spoken by more than a fifth of Scots at the time of the Acts of Proscription to only 1% today.
Who got it down to being only 'more than a fifth' ?
I'd imagine that industrialisation and public education had plenty of influence from that time onwards.
And I suspect Scotland was never short of Gradgrinds and Bounderbys.
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Is there a reason we need to keep it on balance? Is there a reason we can't continue to get the ones who continue to get the ones who put in more than they take out, are well educated and well-qualified without providing free movement to those who take more than they put in, are uneducated and unqualified?
If I employ a group of people and on balance most of them are educated, qualified and trustworthy but one is an untrustworthy thief then I will get rid of the thief rather than shrug my shoulders and say on balance I'm OK.
The Commons will likely VONC Boris before the autumn given he has not ruled out No Deal, Boris then wins a majority on a pre October general election on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform by October 31st
If Johnson succeeds I think that "No Deal" would be a very short term state and unlikely to last beyond the end of 2019. The EU will not want that state to last any more than the UK and a longer term deal of in the interests of both parties would follow quickly. That is in contrast to the position up to now where the EU has chosen to play hardball in the hope that the UK will either chose to remain or accept May's abject "Deal" that would settle next to nothing other than to strengthen the EU's position in the negotiations that would follow.
No discussions on post no deal departures on future trade deals until U.K. pays its debts, resolves EU citizens rights and accepts the backstop.
And you are taking them at their word.
It seems a reasonable position. To do otherwise would be akin to driving without insurance because you know you’re a better driver than everybody else.
If you want a driving analogy, the UK's negotiating position to date has been akin to a couple approaching a UK used car salesman, telling them that we are desperate to buy one of their cars and asking them to name their price and choose the car. They've selected an old banger which is just as bad as the clapped out model which they sold us previously at an inflated price and which we're still driving now. We've been asked to sign the cheque for the deal with a promise that the test drive will be fine, but the salesman has insisted on a legal provision that waives all our of rights if it is not.
When the purchaser at the last minute discloses that they are having second thought and wondering about engaging someone else to negotiate for them, the used car salesman insists that those terms will not be negotiated even if the purchaser walks away and he loses the deal.
You choose to believe the used car salesman. I choose not to. I realise that I might need to walk away, while telling the salesman that he can call me when he is prepared to offer something better.
No, I don’t want any analogies. They are invariably obfuscatory or irrelevant, whether deliberately so or not.
Of course the couple originally had a perfectly serviceable, indeed high quality, car which for some reason they chose to abandon.
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Is there a reason we need to keep it on balance? Is there a reason we can't continue to get the ones who continue to get the ones who put in more than they take out, are well educated and well-qualified without providing free movement to those who take more than they put in, are uneducated and unqualified?
If I employ a group of people and on balance most of them are educated, qualified and trustworthy but one is an untrustworthy thief then I will get rid of the thief rather than shrug my shoulders and say on balance I'm OK.
We can get rid of the thieves now, Philip.
What about the honest but uneducated, unqualified migrants who take out more than they put in? Can we get rid of them rather than rounding them up "in balance"?
The Commons will likely VONC Boris before the autumn given he has not ruled out No Deal, Boris then wins a majority on a pre October general election on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform by October 31st
Yes, I think that general scenario is quite likely now although in terms of practical timetabling the GE might have been called before 31st October but held after then, with the Commons having blocked departure in the meantime. In some ways that might work better for Johnson than if the Commons had not definitely blocked departure. The question is whether Johnson can secure a workable majority but he certainly will have removed the existential threat from the Brexit Party by pursuing that course.
If Johnson succeeds I think that "No Deal" would be a very short term state and unlikely to last beyond the end of 2019. The EU will not want that state to last any more than the UK and a longer term deal of in the interests of both parties would follow quickly. That is in contrast to the position up to now where the EU has chosen to play hardball in the hope that the UK will either chose to remain or accept May's abject "Deal" that would settle next to nothing other than to strengthen the EU's position in the negotiations that would follow.
No discussions on post no deal departures on future trade deals until U.K. pays its debts, resolves EU citizens rights and accepts the backstop.
And you are taking them at their word.
It seems a reasonable position. To do otherwise would be akin to driving without insurance because you know you’re a better driver than everybody else.
If you want a driving analogy, the UK's negotiating position to date has been akin to a couple approaching a UK used car salesmanthat the test drive will be fine, but the salesman has insisted on a legal provision that waives all our of rights if it is not.
When the purchaser at the last minute discloses that they are having second thought and wondering about engaging someone else to negotiate for them, the used car salesman insists that those terms will not be negotiated even if the purchaser walks away and he loses the deal.
You choose to believe the used car salesman. I choose not to. I realise that I might need to walk away, while telling the salesman that he can call me when he is prepared to offer something better.
We are not walking away to the status quo with a No Deal, though. That’s where your rather tortured analogy falls down.
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Is there a reason we need to keep it on balance? Is there a reason we can't continue to get the ones who continue to get the ones who put in more than they take out, are well educated and well-qualified without providing free movement to those who take more than they put in, are uneducated and unqualified?
If I employ a group of people and on balance most of them are educated, qualified and trustworthy but one is an untrustworthy thief then I will get rid of the thief rather than shrug my shoulders and say on balance I'm OK.
We can get rid of the thieves now, Philip.
What about the honest but uneducated, unqualified migrants who take out more than they put in? Can we get rid of them rather than rounding them up "in balance"?
We can if we’re prepared to cause ourselves significant economic harm and lose a lot of people doing jobs that the locals will not do, yes.
I am being bombarded with e mails from team Boris with yesterday the Telegraph endorsing him and just now Boris Team announcing the Times backing.
Whatever else his campaign, with active telephone calling and almost daily e mails, contrasts with nothing of any note from Hunt
I don’t hold the facts. But I hold this suspicion.
Boris has some wealthy backers. With that wealthy backing comes some Cambridge analytica type input that can build a list of their electorate and merge it with other data. When you harvest data sets containing thousands trends become clear, and smart campaigning these days can cleverly target. In 2016 vote leave sent one billion targeted ads?
At the same time and separately, some other people (by the fact they out themselves on social media saying what they are doing) funding and organising a blukip interference in the Conservative party and its election, such as register with two associations get two votes, three associations vote early and vote often,
Is this post inaccurate and libellous , should I delete it?
Well perhaps there are British criminals forcing vulnerable British people to pick turnips and wash cars in Poland.
But the BBC haven't reported it yet.
Now doubtless there are still a few geriatric old style villains alive on the Costa del Crime but as I remember the Spanish government were happy for them to migrate there together with their ill-gotten gains.
So, basically, you have no idea whatsoever.
Perhaps you could give me an idea by providing some information.
I take it you have some information and are not engaged in whataboutery of things which don't actually exist.
Yes there are worldwide criminal activities and drugs are always prominent, we all know that.
But what we also have in this country is the free migration of criminal gangs and the vulnerable victims they exploit.
While being told that the immigrants from the EU are Europe's 'best and brightest' and don't put extra pressures on the public services.
And as I keep saying those 60% Leave towns see few of those 'best and brightest' but a great deal more of the less desirable immigrants.
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Perhaps you can point out where I said that all EU immigrants are 'criminals/gypsies/nannies'.
What I have previously said is that the type of immigrants different areas around the UK get varies with the less affluent parts getting proportionally more of the less desirable immigrants.
And while immigrants from the EU might well be comparatively well-educated and well-qualified many of them will be working in occupations below their skillset.
While that is in effect a waste of theoretical resources (especially to the countries they migrate from) it can be the best use of practical resources - I know from my own experience that its often easier to train a migrant with good English language ability but few practical skills to be a manual worker than it is to train a migrant with more practical skills but lower English language ability.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
How many of them happened before the Act of Union ?
Both England and Scotland were examples of determined nation building, the UK rather less so.
I'd generally be suspicious of people with a political agenda making a clinical diagnosis based on media appearances but the airports thing was legitimately weird...
Also if he's worried about both losing and a subsequent prosecution, a memory-destroying, potentially illegal-conduct-excusing illness seems like a sensible way to exit...
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
Not to neglect the English Enclosure movement to force the peasantry off the land, deprive them of their common grazing rights and to create an urban working class dependent on the whims of a capitalist class.
I don’t hold the facts. But I hold this suspicion.
Boris has some wealthy backers. With that wealthy backing comes some Cambridge analytica type input that can build a list of their electorate and merge it with other data. When you harvest data sets containing thousands trends become clear, and smart campaigning these days can cleverly target. In 2016 vote leave sent one billion targeted ads?
At the same time and separately, some other people (by the fact they out themselves on social media saying what they are doing) funding and organising a blukip interference in the Conservative party and its election, such as register with two associations get two votes, three associations vote early and vote often,
Is this post inaccurate and libellous , should I delete it?
Too late now. It's set in stone.
Your post reminds me of something I am curious about.
That fantastic Vote Leave database that allowed them to access 3m of the Great Ignored who had never before voted and get them down the polling station to vote for Brexit in June 2016 - does that still exist and if so who owns it now?
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
How many of them happened before the Act of Union ?
Both England and Scotland were examples of determined nation building, the UK rather less so.
From 1066 it took more than three centuries for English to oust French as the language of government. The parliament of 1362 was at least partly in English, then, in the early 15th century, Henry V became the first king of Norman descent to use English in his written instructions. That smacks of colonialism to me.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
Not to neglect the English Enclosure movement to force the peasantry off the land, deprive them of their common grazing rights and to create an urban working class dependent on the whims of a capitalist class.
The Enclosure Acts were of course largely for the benefit of the non-native aristocracy whereas the capitalists of the urban areas were more likely Anglo-Saxon. Hence the former wanted nothing to do with the latter, unless they had pretty daughters with substantial dowries.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
Not to neglect the English Enclosure movement to force the peasantry off the land, deprive them of their common grazing rights and to create an urban working class dependent on the whims of a capitalist class.
Again part of English nation building.
Now as an example of the UK's failure in nation building consider how much stronger the union would be if there had been a UK football team.
A minor example perhaps but a UK winners in 1970 with Best and Law in the team or winners in 1996 with Giggs playing a star role ...
I find anything over 5 on the running machine at the gym a bit of a challenge. Two or three minutes is Ok, 4 hours over a marathon course would be impossible.
completely not on the topic but definitely related to the post: PLEASE can you stop justifying the text on the right? It is very off-putting and old-fashioned looking, and makes me much less inclined to read the whole thing.
The Commons will likely VONC Boris before the autumn given he has not ruled out No Deal, Boris then wins a majority on a pre October general election on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform by October 31st
If Johnson succeeds I think that "No Deal" would be a very short term state and unlikely to last beyond the end of 2019. The EU will not want that state to last any more than the UK and a longer term deal of in the interests of both parties would follow quickly. That is in contrast to the position up to now where the EU has chosen to play hardball in the hope that the UK will either chose to remain or accept May's abject "Deal" that would settle next to nothing other than to strengthen the EU's position in the negotiations that would follow.
No discussions on post no deal departures on future trade deals until U.K. pays its debts, resolves EU citizens rights and accepts the backstop.
And you are taking them at their word.
It seems a reasonable position. To do otherwise would be akin to driving without insurance because you know you’re a better driver than everybody else.
If you want a driving analogy, the UK's negotiating position to date has been akin to a couple approaching a UK used car salesman, telling them that we are desperate to buy one of their cars and asking them to name their price and choose the car. They've selected an old banger which is just as bad as the clapped out model which they sold us previously at an inflated price and which we're still driving now. We've been asked to sign the cheque for the deal with a promise that the test drive will be fine, but the salesman has insisted on a legal provision that waives all our of rights if it is not.
When the purchaser at the last minute discloses that they are having second thought and wondering about engaging someone else to negotiate for them, the used car salesman insists that those terms will not be negotiated even if the purchaser walks away and he loses the deal.
You choose to believe the used car salesman. I choose not to. I realise that I might need to walk away, while telling the salesman that he can call me when he is prepared to offer something better.
No, I don’t want any analogies. They are invariably obfuscatory or irrelevant, whether deliberately so or not.
+1 All that talk of divorces and leaving the golf club back in the early days helped us not one jot.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
How many of them happened before the Act of Union ?
Both England and Scotland were examples of determined nation building, the UK rather less so.
From 1066 it took more than three centuries for English to oust French as the language of government. The parliament of 1362 was at least partly in English, then, in the early 15th century, Henry V became the first king of Norman descent to use English in his written instructions. That smacks of colonialism to me.
Latin was the predominant language of government in medieval times, not French. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any legal or administrative document in French within a couple of centuries of the Norman Conquest.
I find anything over 5 on the running machine at the gym a bit of a challenge. Two or three minutes is Ok, 4 hours over a marathon course would be impossible.
That's impressive though for someone of your venerable years.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
How many of them happened before the Act of Union ?
Both England and Scotland were examples of determined nation building, the UK rather less so.
From 1066 it took more than three centuries for English to oust French as the language of government. The parliament of 1362 was at least partly in English, then, in the early 15th century, Henry V became the first king of Norman descent to use English in his written instructions. That smacks of colonialism to me.
Latin was the predominant language of government in medieval times, not French. I think you's be hard-pressed to find any legal or administrative document in French within a couple of centuries of the Norman Conquest.
Weren’t the Normans originally Vikings from Scandinavia? They picked up a version of French quick enough themselves.
completely not on the topic but definitely related to the post: PLEASE can you stop justifying the text on the right? It is very off-putting and old-fashioned looking, and makes me much less inclined to read the whole thing.
Yes, you’ve put your finger on why some leads seem to be big blocs of text. You are right it is offputting.
I find anything over 5 on the running machine at the gym a bit of a challenge. Two or three minutes is Ok, 4 hours over a marathon course would be impossible.
That's impressive though for someone of your venerable years.
Thank you. Others of my years can do better, though.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
How many of them happened before the Act of Union ?
Both England and Scotland were examples of determined nation building, the UK rather less so.
From 1066 it took more than three centuries for English to oust French as the language of government. The parliament of 1362 was at least partly in English, then, in the early 15th century, Henry V became the first king of Norman descent to use English in his written instructions. That smacks of colonialism to me.
Latin was the predominant language of government in medieval times, not French. I think you's be hard-pressed to find any legal or administrative document in French within a couple of centuries of the Norman Conquest.
Weren’t the Normans originally Vikings from Scandinavia? They picked up a version of French quick enough themselves.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
How many of them happened before the Act of Union ?
Both England and Scotland were examples of determined nation building, the UK rather less so.
From 1066 it took more than three centuries for English to oust French as the language of government. The parliament of 1362 was at least partly in English, then, in the early 15th century, Henry V became the first king of Norman descent to use English in his written instructions. That smacks of colonialism to me.
Latin was the predominant language of government in medieval times, not French. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any legal or administrative document in French within a couple of centuries of the Norman Conquest.
Ydoethur will know better, but my understanding was that while Latin was the language of documents, Norman French was the language of the Court. And, I believe, the courts.
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Is there a reason we need to keep it on balance? Is there a reason we can't continue to get the ones who continue to get the ones who put in more than they take out, are well educated and well-qualified without providing free movement to those who take more than they put in, are uneducated and unqualified?
If I employ a group of people and on balance most of them are educated, qualified and trustworthy but one is an untrustworthy thief then I will get rid of the thief rather than shrug my shoulders and say on balance I'm OK.
It's a fair point. When you up operate a free movement zone, whether the EU or Ireland CTA you accept the job lot and can't discriminate between people you want and those you don't want.
EU immigrants don't tend to criminality and are probably less criminal on average than indigenous population. Freedom of movement works both way. I don't have a problem in principle with freedom of movement and there isn't a problem in practice because crime exists already and freedom of movement doesn't make it worse.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
Not to neglect the English Enclosure movement to force the peasantry off the land, deprive them of their common grazing rights and to create an urban working class dependent on the whims of a capitalist class.
Again part of English nation building.
Now as an example of the UK's failure in nation building consider how much stronger the union would be if there had been a UK football team.
A minor example perhaps but a UK winners in 1970 with Best and Law in the team or winners in 1996 with Giggs playing a star role ...
Doesn't work like that. Winning teams need a sense of unity. Hence why Croatia have a much better international record than Yugoslavia.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
How many of them happened before the Act of Union ?
Both England and Scotland were examples of determined nation building, the UK rather less so.
From 1066 it took more than three centuries for English to oust French as the language of government. The parliament of 1362 was at least partly in English, then, in the early 15th century, Henry V became the first king of Norman descent to use English in his written instructions. That smacks of colonialism to me.
Latin was the predominant language of government in medieval times, not French. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any legal or administrative document in French within a couple of centuries of the Norman Conquest.
Ydoethur will know better, but my understanding was that while Latin was the language of documents, Norman French was the language of the Court. And, I believe, the courts.
What is the language of government, if not the language of the documents by which government was carried on?
Of course the Norman aristocrats spoke French to one another, for obvious reasons.
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Is there a reason we need to keep it on balance? Is there a reason we can't continue to get the ones who continue to get the ones who put in more than they take out, are well educated and well-qualified without providing free movement to those who take more than they put in, are uneducated and unqualified?
If I employ a group of people and on balance most of them are educated, qualified and trustworthy but one is an untrustworthy thief then I will get rid of the thief rather than shrug my shoulders and say on balance I'm OK.
Fair question.
1) Finding out which is which involves a large government bureaucracy which causes a lot of trouble, delay and expense, which is particularly discouraging to the people you want the most, who will tend to have other options.
2) Despite all of which, the said government bureaucracy will screw it up a large proportion of the time, rejecting a lot of the people you want while accepting a lot of the people you don't want. This is particularly true if one of the qualities you want to avoid is a willingness to lie on government forms.
3) Since these things are usually reciprocated, if you want to move to one of the countries this is applied to, you'll be subject to a similar process, which will have a lot of the same pathologies.
completely not on the topic but definitely related to the post: PLEASE can you stop justifying the text on the right? It is very off-putting and old-fashioned looking, and makes me much less inclined to read the whole thing.
Yes, you’ve put your finger on why some leads seem to be big blocs of text. You are right it is offputting.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
Not to neglect the English Enclosure movement to force the peasantry off the land, deprive them of their common grazing rights and to create an urban working class dependent on the whims of a capitalist class.
Again part of English nation building.
Now as an example of the UK's failure in nation building consider how much stronger the union would be if there had been a UK football team.
A minor example perhaps but a UK winners in 1970 with Best and Law in the team or winners in 1996 with Giggs playing a star role ...
Doesn't work like that. Winning teams need a sense of unity. Hence why Croatia have a much better international record than Yugoslavia.
But Yugoslavia had a better record than Serbia.
And Czechoslovakia had a better record than the Czech Republic.
And the USSR had a better record than Russia.
Raw resources ie quality players are also vital.
Now would a UK team have a 'sense of unity' ?
I don't see why not as the successful Liverpool, MU, LU, Forest etc teams were able to create a sense of unity with players from throughout the British Isles.
I doubt it's that fast. I am 6'2", albeit with relatively short legs and long body. I can walk 20+ miles in a day at about 3MPH over good, flat terrain, without stopping. And get up the next day to do it again - and repeat ad nauseum.
I can push that to 3.5 MPH, but I find it impossible to walk for sustained periods between 3.5 and 5.5 MPH - there's no natural pace, and I just break into a jog.
Also remember that the London Marathon is a fairly unusual and prestigious event: a number of the people taking part are those doing it in silly ways (e.g. dressed as a dragon), or with various illnesses (and raising money as they did so.)
For instance, I knew a gent who did it with early-onset Parkinsons - and he didn't get a bad time, either. Or Mrs J, who was disappointed with a time in a marathon race, and wondered why it had taken her so long. It turned out she was pregnant ...
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Is there a reason we need to keep it on balance? Is there a reason we can't continue to get the ones who continue to get the ones who put in more than they take out, are well educated and well-qualified without providing free movement to those who take more than they put in, are uneducated and unqualified?
If I employ a group of people and on balance most of them are educated, qualified and trustworthy but one is an untrustworthy thief then I will get rid of the thief rather than shrug my shoulders and say on balance I'm OK.
Fair question.
1) Finding out which is which involves a large government bureaucracy which causes a lot of trouble, delay and expense, which is particularly discouraging to the people you want the most, who will tend to have other options.
2) Despite all of which, the said government bureaucracy will screw it up a large proportion of the time, rejecting a lot of the people you want while accepting a lot of the people you don't want. This is particularly true if one of the qualities you want to avoid is a willingness to lie on government forms.
3) Since these things are usually reciprocated, if you want to move to one of the countries this is applied to, you'll be subject to a similar process, which will have a lot of the same pathologies.
Which is the 'its a bit difficult and its not people like me who suffer the drawbacks' argument.
All very understandable for us nice safe affluent people but the further down the socioeconomic scale you go the more the cost/benefit changes.
Now I wonder what the effect would be if we allowed unrestricted immigration of skilled highly qualified people to deprived areas of the UK and unrestricted immigration of unskilled, lowly qualified people to affluent areas of the UK.
I would be very interested to see what the effects of that would be economically, socially and on local opinions.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
How many of them happened before the Act of Union ?
Both England and Scotland were examples of determined nation building, the UK rather less so.
From 1066 it took more than three centuries for English to oust French as the language of government. The parliament of 1362 was at least partly in English, then, in the early 15th century, Henry V became the first king of Norman descent to use English in his written instructions. That smacks of colonialism to me.
Latin was the predominant language of government in medieval times, not French. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any legal or administrative document in French within a couple of centuries of the Norman Conquest.
Ydoethur will know better, but my understanding was that while Latin was the language of documents, Norman French was the language of the Court. And, I believe, the courts.
What is the language of government, if not the language of the documents by which government was carried on?
Of course the Norman aristocrats spoke French to one another, for obvious reasons.
Good, and taken, point. The Domesday Book was in Latin, with some English terms. Do we have any examples, I wonder, of written instructions from the various Norman and immediately succeeding kings.
In any event either language would have been unintelligible to the Saxons, although, presumably an educated person would know Latin. Actually it's quite notable how many educated people in those times appear to have spoken two or three languages.
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Is there a reason we need to keep it on balance? Is there a reason we can't continue to get the ones who continue to get the ones who put in more than they take out, are well educated and well-qualified without providing free movement to those who take more than they put in, are uneducated and unqualified?
If I employ a group of people and on balance most of them are educated, qualified and trustworthy but one is an untrustworthy thief then I will get rid of the thief rather than shrug my shoulders and say on balance I'm OK.
Fair question.
1) Finding out which is which involves a large government bureaucracy which causes a lot of trouble, delay and expense, which is particularly discouraging to the people you want the most, who will tend to have other options.
2) Despite all of which, the said government bureaucracy will screw it up a large proportion of the time, rejecting a lot of the people you want while accepting a lot of the people you don't want. This is particularly true if one of the qualities you want to avoid is a willingness to lie on government forms.
3) Since these things are usually reciprocated, if you want to move to one of the countries this is applied to, you'll be subject to a similar process, which will have a lot of the same pathologies.
Which is the 'its a bit difficult and its not people like me who suffer the drawbacks' argument.
No it's not, read it again, starting with @Philip_Thompson's post.
Very good, fair leader, but on a point of fact: Corbyn asked for proof of Russian involvement in the Skripal case, and when he got it he accepted it and supported sanctions against Russia for failure to cooperate properly, so he does pass Cyclefree's litmus test on proper scepticism. His line is simply and consistently that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Entirely separately, it is undoubtedly true that he is instinctively a sceptic about the US - its motives, its actions and its assertions. There are times when that might well be exaggerated. Just at the moment, though, in dealing with Mr Trump, it strikes me as very healthy.
I doubt it's that fast. I am 6'2", albeit with relatively short legs and long body. I can walk 20+ miles in a day at about 3MPH over good, flat terrain, without stopping. And get up the next day to do it again - and repeat ad nauseum.
I can push that to 3.5 MPH, but I find it impossible to walk for sustained periods between 3.5 and 5.5 MPH - there's no natural pace, and I just break into a jog.
Also remember that the London Marathon is a fairly unusual and prestigious event: a number of the people taking part are those doing it in silly ways (e.g. dressed as a dragon), or with various illnesses (and raising money as they did so.)
For instance, I knew a gent who did it with early-onset Parkinsons - and he didn't get a bad time, either. Or Mrs J, who was disappointed with a time in a marathon race, and wondered why it had taken her so long. It turned out she was pregnant ...
I don't know if I've ever done much more than 10 miles in one walk so I can't say what my long term speed would be.
But I would be confident I usually walk at 4mph albeit with a tendency to break into a jog at times - perhaps because I'm often late at getting somewhere
If going for a mile, easily. But you'd be hard pressed to keep that up for long. I figure you'd probably want to prepare with some practice long walks to walk consistently at a speed to do a marathon for 7.5 hours, but it would be walking pace.
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Is there a reason we need to keep it on balance? Is there a reason we can't continue to get the ones who continue to get the ones who put in more than they take out, are well educated and well-qualified without providing free movement to those who take more than they put in, are uneducated and unqualified?
If I employ a group of people and on balance most of them are educated, qualified and trustworthy but one is an untrustworthy thief then I will get rid of the thief rather than shrug my shoulders and say on balance I'm OK.
Fair question.
1) Finding out which is which involves a large government bureaucracy which causes a lot of trouble, delay and expense, which is particularly discouraging to the people you want the most, who will tend to have other options.
2) Despite all of which, the said government bureaucracy will screw it up a large proportion of the time, rejecting a lot of the people you want while accepting a lot of the people you don't want. This is particularly true if one of the qualities you want to avoid is a willingness to lie on government forms.
3) Since these things are usually reciprocated, if you want to move to one of the countries this is applied to, you'll be subject to a similar process, which will have a lot of the same pathologies.
Which is the 'its a bit difficult and its not people like me who suffer the drawbacks' argument.
No it's not, read it again, starting with @Philip_Thompson's post.
I did - you're coming at the issue from the 'these are the difficulties' POV rather than the 'these are the advantages' POV.
That's fair enough but as I keep on saying the views about advantages and disadvantages, difficulties and practical effects are dependent upon both an individual's own circumstances and those of the individual area they are talking about.
Very good, fair leader, but on a point of fact: Corbyn asked for proof of Russian involvement in the Skripal case, and when he got it he accepted it and supported sanctions against Russia for failure to cooperate properly, so he does pass Cyclefree's litmus test on proper scepticism. His line is simply and consistently that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Entirely separately, it is undoubtedly true that he is instinctively a sceptic about the US - its motives, its actions and its assertions. There are times when that might well be exaggerated. Just at the moment, though, in dealing with Mr Trump, it strikes me as very healthy.
I don't see how one squares not jumping to conclusions and being instinctively skeptical/supportive of a particular point or who it comes from. That is a Corbyn specific point, we all do it, but being instrinctively wary doesn't seem any different than being instinctively supporting. One might be right sometimes and wrong othertimes, but it's hard to claim moral superiority, which people do, for that instinctive support/wariness unless one is jumpting to a conclusion with that instinctive reaction. People jump to conclusions while saying people shouldnt jump to conclusions all the time.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
How many of them happened before the Act of Union ?
Both England and Scotland were examples of determined nation building, the UK rather less so.
From 1066 it took more than three centuries for English to oust French as the language of government. The parliament of 1362 was at least partly in English, then, in the early 15th century, Henry V became the first king of Norman descent to use English in his written instructions. That smacks of colonialism to me.
Latin was the predominant language of government in medieval times, not French. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any legal or administrative document in French within a couple of centuries of the Norman Conquest.
Ydoethur will know better, but my understanding was that while Latin was the language of documents, Norman French was the language of the Court. And, I believe, the courts.
What is the language of government, if not the language of the documents by which government was carried on?
Of course the Norman aristocrats spoke French to one another, for obvious reasons.
Government was not 'carried on' by documents in the Middle Ages in quite the way we would understand it. Records were kept in Latin as were most of the key chronicles until at least the fourteenth century. But instructions were often verbal, and would therefore be in Norman French.
Very good, fair leader, but on a point of fact: Corbyn asked for proof of Russian involvement in the Skripal case, and when he got it he accepted it and supported sanctions against Russia for failure to cooperate properly, so he does pass Cyclefree's litmus test on proper scepticism. His line is simply and consistently that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Entirely separately, it is undoubtedly true that he is instinctively a sceptic about the US - its motives, its actions and its assertions. There are times when that might well be exaggerated. Just at the moment, though, in dealing with Mr Trump, it strikes me as very healthy.
A more general sceptism of established thoughts and assumptions is not a bad thing.
Very good, fair leader, but on a point of fact: Corbyn asked for proof of Russian involvement in the Skripal case, and when he got it he accepted it and supported sanctions against Russia for failure to cooperate properly, so he does pass Cyclefree's litmus test on proper scepticism. His line is simply and consistently that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Entirely separately, it is undoubtedly true that he is instinctively a sceptic about the US - its motives, its actions and its assertions. There are times when that might well be exaggerated. Just at the moment, though, in dealing with Mr Trump, it strikes me as very healthy.
It's not about having an instinctive skepticism about the US, or anyone else, it's about seeing them as they are, a foreign power. If people could manage to do that, rather than deluding themselves that we're in some boy's club with them, and that if we give them our lunch money every day they'll like us, we would be making progress.
If a foreign power asks us to support a war, we weigh the pros and cons and decide whether to do so. If a foreign power acts in a way that runs contrary to our interests, but in line with theirs, we don't get upset about it. That is a healthy relationship. What we have at the moment is not.
That suggests how tolerant a country the UK has been and didn't pursue the integration and assimilation (plus extermination and expulsion of minorities) that many European countries did when nation building.
I was a bit taken aback by this. From memory, there was the harrying of the North, the expulsion of the Jews, the various depredations visited upon the Irish, the Highland Clearances, the Interregnum, the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, and the various invasions of King X on British Kingdom Y. And I'm sure others will supply further examples where we intolerantly pursued the integration, assimilation and simple murder of others. I appreciate PB is often a conflict of opinions, but rarely have I seen a situation where a person is simply wrong.
How many of them happened before the Act of Union ?
Both England and Scotland were examples of determined nation building, the UK rather less so.
From 1066 it took more than three centuries for English to oust French as the language of government. The parliament of 1362 was at least partly in English, then, in the early 15th century, Henry V became the first king of Norman descent to use English in his written instructions. That smacks of colonialism to me.
Latin was the predominant language of government in medieval times, not French. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any legal or administrative document in French within a couple of centuries of the Norman Conquest.
Ydoethur will know better, but my understanding was that while Latin was the language of documents, Norman French was the language of the Court. And, I believe, the courts.
What is the language of government, if not the language of the documents by which government was carried on?
Of course the Norman aristocrats spoke French to one another, for obvious reasons.
Government was not 'carried on' by documents in the Middle Ages in quite the way we would understand it. Records were kept in Latin as were most of the key chronicles until at least the fourteenth century. But instructions were often verbal, and would therefore be in Norman French.
Good for Corbyn! If we're supposed to tolerate each and everything the Americans thrust upon us-particularly under the Presidency of Trump-then Corbyn's scepticism is more than welcome. Indeed if foreign policy was the only issue he'd have my vote every day of the week. It's his domestic policy where the problems arise.
Good for Corbyn! If we're supposed to tolerate each and everything the Americans thrust upon us-particularly under the Presidency of Trump-then Corbyn's scepticism is more than welcome. Indeed if foreign policy was the only issue he'd have my vote every day of the week. It's his domestic policy where the problems arise.
No, we get told that, on balance, EU migrants put in more than they take out and that, on balance, they are comparatively well-educated and well-qualified. Your belief that they are all criminals/gypsies/nannies is just as ludicrous as believing only the brightest and best come here. It's also the case that in many 60% Leave towns, there are relatively low levels of EU immigration.
Is there a reason we need to keep it on balance? Is there a reason we can't continue to get the ones who continue to get the ones who put in more than they take out, are well educated and well-qualified without providing free movement to those who take more than they put in, are uneducated and unqualified?
If I employ a group of people and on balance most of them are educated, qualified and trustworthy but one is an untrustworthy thief then I will get rid of the thief rather than shrug my shoulders and say on balance I'm OK.
We can get rid of the thieves now, Philip.
What about the honest but uneducated, unqualified migrants who take out more than they put in? Can we get rid of them rather than rounding them up "in balance"?
We can if we’re prepared to cause ourselves significant economic harm and lose a lot of people doing jobs that the locals will not do, yes.
Given most migration is non EU would we really lose a lot.of people?
The simplest solution to me would be to keep a system close to free movement but where migrations can't claim any in work benefits.
Good for Corbyn! If we're supposed to tolerate each and everything the Americans thrust upon us-particularly under the Presidency of Trump-then Corbyn's scepticism is more than welcome. Indeed if foreign policy was the only issue he'd have my vote every day of the week. It's his domestic policy where the problems arise.
Very good, fair leader, but on a point of fact: Corbyn asked for proof of Russian involvement in the Skripal case, and when he got it he accepted it and supported sanctions against Russia for failure to cooperate properly, so he does pass Cyclefree's litmus test on proper scepticism. His line is simply and consistently that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Entirely separately, it is undoubtedly true that he is instinctively a sceptic about the US - its motives, its actions and its assertions. There are times when that might well be exaggerated. Just at the moment, though, in dealing with Mr Trump, it strikes me as very healthy.
It's not about having an instinctive skepticism about the US, or anyone else, it's about seeing them as they are, a foreign power. If people could manage to do that, rather than deluding themselves that we're in some boy's club with them, and that if we give them our lunch money every day they'll like us, we would be making progress.
If a foreign power asks us to support a war, we weigh the pros and cons and decide whether to do so. If a foreign power acts in a way that runs contrary to our interests, but in line with theirs, we don't get upset about it. That is a healthy relationship. What we have at the moment is not.
I find any idea of 'scepticism' to be quite funny when it comes from someone who swallowed - and regurgitated on here - whatever effluent spewed out of the Russian government and media after MH17 was shot down.
You showed no scepticism, and no logic. As they changed their story, so your story changed to match.
Full details of the YouGov Tory members' poll are out now.
As well as the headline figures of Boris 74% and Hunt 26% they also have some additional questions which shows Tory members more committed to Brexit than ever but easing off in support for more austerity.
53% of Tory members say the next PM should resign if Britain has not left the EU by 31st October with just 34% opposed.
67% back proroguing Parliament to enforce No Deal if necessary with just 27% opposed.
45% thing Boris could renegotiate a better Deal with the EU and 90% think he would be prepared to Leave the EU with No Deal. Only 22% think Hunt could renegotiate a better Deal with the EU and only 27% think he would be prepared to Leave the EU with No Deal.
52% back the government increasing public spending in the event of No Deal, even if it means more public borrowing and debt to support the economy.
Only 41% of Tory members think the government should maintain limits on public spending after Brexit in order to keep public borrowing and debt under control.
Full details of the YouGov Tory members' poll are out now.
As well as the headline figures of Boris 74% and Hunt 26% they also have some additional questions which shows Tory members more committed to Brexit than ever but easing off in support for more austerity.
53% of Tory members say the next PM should resign if Britain has not left the EU by 31st October with just 34% opposed.
67% back proroguing Parliament to enforce No Deal if necessary with just 27% opposed.
45% thing Boris could renegotiate a better Deal with the EU and 90% think he would be prepared to Leave the EU with No Deal. Only 22% think Hunt could renegotiate a better Deal with the EU and only 27% think he would be prepared to Leave the EU with No Deal.
52% back the government increasing public spending in the event of No Deal, even if it means more public borrowing and debt to support the economy.
Only 41% of Tory members think the government should maintain limits on public spending after Brexit in order to keep public borrowing and debt under control.
Full details of the YouGov Tory members' poll are out now.
As well as the headline figures of Boris 74% and Hunt 26% they also have some additional questions which shows Tory members more committed to Brexit than ever but easing off in support for more austerity.
53% of Tory members say the next PM should resign if Britain has not left the EU by 31st October with just 34% opposed.
67% back proroguing Parliament to enforce No Deal if necessary with just 27% opposed.
45% thing Boris could renegotiate a better Deal with the EU and 90% think he would be prepared to Leave the EU with No Deal. Only 22% think Hunt could renegotiate a better Deal with the EU and only 27% think he would be prepared to Leave the EU with No Deal.
52% back the government increasing public spending in the event of No Deal, even if it means more public borrowing and debt to support the economy.
Only 41% of Tory members think the government should maintain limits on public spending after Brexit in order to keep public borrowing and debt under control.
Thanks for that. Cake and eat it rather, isn't it. I'm concerned too by the two-thirds of Tory members who would be prepared to close down Parliament if it was necessary to do that to Leave, and to do so with No Deal. The commitment to democracy seems a bit thin!
In terms of demographics of support, Hunt leads with Tory members who were Remainers on 73% to 27% for Boris and does better than his overall voting share with Scottish Tories, with whom he gets 45% while Boris gets 55%, with members in London with whom he gets 40% to 60% for Boris and with members aged 18 to 48 with whom he gets 28% to 72% for Boris and with Tory members who are women with whom he gets 30% to 70% for Boris.
Boris does best with Tory members who voted Leave with 86% to just 14% for Hunt, Tory members in the North with whom he gets 80% to just 20% for Hunt and Tory members aged 50 to 64 with whom he gets 77% to just 23% for Hunt.
There's some historical revisionism there from Mr. Palmer.
Corbyn was supporting the Russian state's version of events against the British state when practically the entire world agreed with us.
And that's over chemical weapons used on British soil.
He's a wretch, a menace, an anti-Western idiot. Boris isn't fit to be PM but I'd still vote for him every day of the week when the alternative is Corbyn.
In terms of demographics of support, Hunt leads with Tory members who were Remainers on 73% to 27% for Boris and does better than his overall voting share with Scottish Tories, with whom he gets 45% while Boris gets 55%, with members in London with whom he gets 40% to 60% for Boris and with members aged 18 to 48 with whom he gets 28% to 72% for Boris and with Tory members who are women with whom he gets 30% to 70% for Boris.
Boris does best with Tory members who voted Leave with 86% to just 14% for Hunt, Tory members in the North with whom he gets 80% to just 20% for Hunt and Tory members aged 50 to 64 with whom he gets 77% to just 23% for Hunt.
You do like to quote stats on conservative members who at best are 160,000 of which many are recent UKIP entryists.
They represent a tiny number of voters and in order to govern the party has to reach far beyond including millions of young people who absolutely reject the 'Farage' attitude to the UK
Comments
Ironically it was Spain's entry to the EU which forced them to stop it.
More than 400 people – many of them homeless, ex-prisoners or alcoholics – were forced to work for almost nothing after being lured to the west midlands by a well-organised Polish gang.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/modern-slavery-ring-victims-human-trafficking-uk-poland-a8990151.html
The victims – aged between 17 and 60 – had to use soup kitchens and food banks to eat
Interesting how this story shines a little more light onto other aspects of modern Britain.
I take it you have some information and are not engaged in whataboutery of things which don't actually exist.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/04/inside-the-21st-century-british-criminal-underworld
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Scottish_Gaelic#Persecution,_Retreat,_and_Dispersal
You might say that Scotland was a more successful example of state building than the UK was.
After all there are few requests for independence FROM Scotland by its original parts.
”too often there are parts of our country...where English is not spoken by some people as their first language, and that needs to be changed…”
The response from the LibDem by-election candidate:
“Mae sylwadau di-glem Boris yn dangos pa mor allan o gyswllt yw e gyda Cymru ac ardaloedd fel ein rhai ni.” (Boris's unparalleled comments show how out of touch he is with Wales and areas like ours)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
But what we also have in this country is the free migration of criminal gangs and the vulnerable victims they exploit.
While being told that the immigrants from the EU are Europe's 'best and brightest' and don't put extra pressures on the public services.
And as I keep saying those 60% Leave towns see few of those 'best and brightest' but a great deal more of the less desirable immigrants.
When the purchaser at the last minute discloses that they are having second thought and wondering about engaging someone else to negotiate for them, the used car salesman insists that those terms will not be negotiated even if the purchaser walks away and he loses the deal.
You choose to believe the used car salesman. I choose not to. I realise that I might need to walk away, while telling the salesman that he can call me when he is prepared to offer something better.
The young have it easier in some ways and harder in some ways.
Some of the advantages for each group were earned and some were not.
Some of the disadvantages for each group were their own fault and some were not.
Most things in life are shades of grey - viewing things in black and white is used usually to either excessively praise or excessively denigrate.
Also shows Boris doesn't have a clue what "first language" actually means.
They are invariably obfuscatory or irrelevant, whether deliberately so or not.
If I employ a group of people and on balance most of them are educated, qualified and trustworthy but one is an untrustworthy thief then I will get rid of the thief rather than shrug my shoulders and say on balance I'm OK.
I'd imagine that industrialisation and public education had plenty of influence from that time onwards.
And I suspect Scotland was never short of Gradgrinds and Bounderbys.
The Tory membership has recently grown from 120k to 160k. Probably fair to say that not many of these new members are in the Ken Clarke mould.
So, if Bozo's margin of victory is under 40k, then it will be fair to say that 'It is the Entryists Wot Won It!'.
Something to mull over.
'Never again should we be led by someone who went to Eton and Oxford. It makes us look frightfully out of touch.'
The Tory Right now:
'Boris Johnson, who went to Eton and Oxford, is just brilliant!'
Boris has some wealthy backers. With that wealthy backing comes some Cambridge analytica type input that can build a list of their electorate and merge it with other data. When you harvest data sets containing thousands trends become clear, and smart campaigning these days can cleverly target. In 2016 vote leave sent one billion targeted ads?
At the same time and separately, some other people (by the fact they out themselves on social media saying what they are doing) funding and organising a blukip interference in the Conservative party and its election, such as register with two associations get two votes, three associations vote early and vote often,
Is this post inaccurate and libellous , should I delete it?
What I have previously said is that the type of immigrants different areas around the UK get varies with the less affluent parts getting proportionally more of the less desirable immigrants.
And while immigrants from the EU might well be comparatively well-educated and well-qualified many of them will be working in occupations below their skillset.
While that is in effect a waste of theoretical resources (especially to the countries they migrate from) it can be the best use of practical resources - I know from my own experience that its often easier to train a migrant with good English language ability but few practical skills to be a manual worker than it is to train a migrant with more practical skills but lower English language ability.
Both England and Scotland were examples of determined nation building, the UK rather less so.
Hundreds of runners who were shouted at for being too slow during this year's London Marathon have been given free entry to next year's event.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-48893181
Good call. Much easier. And we get a new car!
https://twitter.com/duty2warn/status/1147304537327316993
I'd generally be suspicious of people with a political agenda making a clinical diagnosis based on media appearances but the airports thing was legitimately weird...
Also if he's worried about both losing and a subsequent prosecution, a memory-destroying, potentially illegal-conduct-excusing illness seems like a sensible way to exit...
Your post reminds me of something I am curious about.
That fantastic Vote Leave database that allowed them to access 3m of the Great Ignored who had never before voted and get them down the polling station to vote for Brexit in June 2016 - does that still exist and if so who owns it now?
Otherwise its a bit embarrassing.
4 is quite a lick.
Now as an example of the UK's failure in nation building consider how much stronger the union would be if there had been a UK football team.
A minor example perhaps but a UK winners in 1970 with Best and Law in the team or winners in 1996 with Giggs playing a star role ...
Yes, you’ve put your finger on why some leads seem to be big blocs of text. You are right it is offputting.
*edited to correct spelling
EU immigrants don't tend to criminality and are probably less criminal on average than indigenous population. Freedom of movement works both way. I don't have a problem in principle with freedom of movement and there isn't a problem in practice because crime exists already and freedom of movement doesn't make it worse.
But it needs to be argued.
Of course the Norman aristocrats spoke French to one another, for obvious reasons.
1) Finding out which is which involves a large government bureaucracy which causes a lot of trouble, delay and expense, which is particularly discouraging to the people you want the most, who will tend to have other options.
2) Despite all of which, the said government bureaucracy will screw it up a large proportion of the time, rejecting a lot of the people you want while accepting a lot of the people you don't want. This is particularly true if one of the qualities you want to avoid is a willingness to lie on government forms.
3) Since these things are usually reciprocated, if you want to move to one of the countries this is applied to, you'll be subject to a similar process, which will have a lot of the same pathologies.
And Czechoslovakia had a better record than the Czech Republic.
And the USSR had a better record than Russia.
Raw resources ie quality players are also vital.
Now would a UK team have a 'sense of unity' ?
I don't see why not as the successful Liverpool, MU, LU, Forest etc teams were able to create a sense of unity with players from throughout the British Isles.
I can push that to 3.5 MPH, but I find it impossible to walk for sustained periods between 3.5 and 5.5 MPH - there's no natural pace, and I just break into a jog.
Also remember that the London Marathon is a fairly unusual and prestigious event: a number of the people taking part are those doing it in silly ways (e.g. dressed as a dragon), or with various illnesses (and raising money as they did so.)
For instance, I knew a gent who did it with early-onset Parkinsons - and he didn't get a bad time, either. Or Mrs J, who was disappointed with a time in a marathon race, and wondered why it had taken her so long. It turned out she was pregnant ...
All very understandable for us nice safe affluent people but the further down the socioeconomic scale you go the more the cost/benefit changes.
Now I wonder what the effect would be if we allowed unrestricted immigration of skilled highly qualified people to deprived areas of the UK and unrestricted immigration of unskilled, lowly qualified people to affluent areas of the UK.
I would be very interested to see what the effects of that would be economically, socially and on local opinions.
In any event either language would have been unintelligible to the Saxons, although, presumably an educated person would know Latin.
Actually it's quite notable how many educated people in those times appear to have spoken two or three languages.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/jeremy-corbyn-and-novichok-what-did-the-labour-leader-really-say/
Entirely separately, it is undoubtedly true that he is instinctively a sceptic about the US - its motives, its actions and its assertions. There are times when that might well be exaggerated. Just at the moment, though, in dealing with Mr Trump, it strikes me as very healthy.
But I would be confident I usually walk at 4mph albeit with a tendency to break into a jog at times - perhaps because I'm often late at getting somewhere
That's fair enough but as I keep on saying the views about advantages and disadvantages, difficulties and practical effects are dependent upon both an individual's own circumstances and those of the individual area they are talking about.
If a foreign power asks us to support a war, we weigh the pros and cons and decide whether to do so. If a foreign power acts in a way that runs contrary to our interests, but in line with theirs, we don't get upset about it. That is a healthy relationship. What we have at the moment is not.
The simplest solution to me would be to keep a system close to free movement but where migrations can't claim any in work benefits.
You showed no scepticism, and no logic. As they changed their story, so your story changed to match.
That isn't scepticism: it's evil.
As well as the headline figures of Boris 74% and Hunt 26% they also have some additional questions which shows Tory members more committed to Brexit than ever but easing off in support for more austerity.
53% of Tory members say the next PM should resign if Britain has not left the EU by 31st October with just 34% opposed.
67% back proroguing Parliament to enforce No Deal if necessary with just 27% opposed.
45% thing Boris could renegotiate a better Deal with the EU and 90% think he would be prepared to Leave the EU with No Deal. Only 22% think Hunt could renegotiate a better Deal with the EU and only 27% think he would be prepared to Leave the EU with No Deal.
52% back the government increasing public spending in the event of No Deal, even if it means more public borrowing and debt to support the economy.
Only 41% of Tory members think the government should maintain limits on public spending after Brexit in order to keep public borrowing and debt under control.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mazvho8f5m/TimesResults_190705_ConMembers_w1.pdf
The fact that they choose the PM is something that needs to be looked at for the reasons above
The commitment to democracy seems a bit thin!
Boris does best with Tory members who voted Leave with 86% to just 14% for Hunt, Tory members in the North with whom he gets 80% to just 20% for Hunt and Tory members aged 50 to 64 with whom he gets 77% to just 23% for Hunt.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mazvho8f5m/TimesResults_190705_ConMembers_w1.pdf
Corbyn was supporting the Russian state's version of events against the British state when practically the entire world agreed with us.
And that's over chemical weapons used on British soil.
He's a wretch, a menace, an anti-Western idiot. Boris isn't fit to be PM but I'd still vote for him every day of the week when the alternative is Corbyn.
They represent a tiny number of voters and in order to govern the party has to reach far beyond including millions of young people who absolutely reject the 'Farage' attitude to the UK