Good article. But will the anti-Boris people find a cunning plan which is pro something instead of against something?
Labour's policy is to negotiate a different deal based on different red lines and put it to the electorate in a referendum. To get there they want to legislate to prevent no deal and hold a general election that they want to win so they are in a position to negotiate a different deal. This plan is not particularly cunning but it is definitely one with its own defined objective and is not simply about saying no.
aha - so they get this great deal and then at a referendum campaign against it?
And of course the EU will negotiate a great deal with a counter party that will recommend against its acceptance.
At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:
As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.
No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.
Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.
The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
Carlotta pines from afar, concerned she will not be able to get union jack pants after brexit, emigrants are the worst losers.
At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:
As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.
No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.
Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.
The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
Carlotta pines from afar, concerned she will not be able to get union jack pants after brexit, emigrants are the worst losers.
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...).
Not how I've read them but if you want to write something non-bonkers and send it to OGH he'll generally publish other takes...
At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:
As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.
No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.
Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.
The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
Carlotta pines from afar, concerned she will not be able to get union jack pants after brexit, emigrants are the worst losers.
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...). The trouble with this is that eventually they lose the power either to persuade or influence.
Our eventual departure from the EU and a BoJo victory at the next election is going to come as a nasty shock to many here..
Not if the Tories are annihilated at the next election.
At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:
As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.
No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.
Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.
The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
Carlotta pines from afar, concerned she will not be able to get union jack pants after brexit, emigrants are the worst losers.
At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:
As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.
No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.
Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.
The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
Carlotta pines from afar, concerned she will not be able to get union jack pants after brexit, emigrants are the worst losers.
At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:
As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.
No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.
Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.
The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
Carlotta pines from afar, concerned she will not be able to get union jack pants after brexit, emigrants are the worst losers.
Isn't that true for several prominent Nats, too?
*innocent face*
who may they be other than Stuart
Sir Sean Connery?
have not heard a peep from him for many many years
Since MPs have neither cancelled their holidays nor abandoned party conferences wheres the time shortage on "the most important issue of our generation" ?
Bercow is reportedly plotting from his sun-bed in Turkey.....
At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:
As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.
No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.
Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.
The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
Carlotta pines from afar, concerned she will not be able to get union jack pants after brexit, emigrants are the worst losers.
Isn't that true for several prominent Nats, too?
*innocent face*
who may they be other than Stuart
The proprietor of Wings, to name another?
Did I not just post that .............. Stuart Campbell
Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
No, Boris feels he can force the EU to change their mind.
Hammond and others understand that the Backstop is not negotiable so we already have the best deal we can get.
If this is the best deal we can get, but Parliament has made clear it isn’t acceptable, then we have no choice but to leave without a deal
Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
No, Boris feels he can force the EU to change their mind.
Hammond and others understand that the Backstop is not negotiable so we already have the best deal we can get.
If this is the best deal we can get, but Parliament has made clear it isn’t acceptable, then we have no choice but to leave without a deal
the whingers will not accept that is what is happening
Since MPs have neither cancelled their holidays nor abandoned party conferences wheres the time shortage on "the most important issue of our generation" ?
They didn’t sit yesterday or today... that would have made up half the extra time lost
At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:
As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.
No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.
Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.
The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
Carlotta pines from afar, concerned she will not be able to get union jack pants after brexit, emigrants are the worst losers.
Isn't that true for several prominent Nats, too?
*innocent face*
who may they be other than Stuart
Sir Sean Connery?
Alan Cumming (who bought a flat thinking it would also buy him a vote - it didn't)?
At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:
As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.
No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.
Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.
The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
Carlotta pines from afar, concerned she will not be able to get union jack pants after brexit, emigrants are the worst losers.
Isn't that true for several prominent Nats, too?
*innocent face*
who may they be other than Stuart
Sir Sean Connery?
Alan Cumming (who bought a flat thinking it would also buy him a vote - it didn't)?
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...). The trouble with this is that eventually they lose the power either to persuade or influence.
Our eventual departure from the EU and a BoJo victory at the next election is going to come as a nasty shock to many here..
Calling people morons and casting aspersions on their IQ is a sign that the writer has nothing of interest to say and is just sounding off. Best policy is to skip such contributors.
Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
No, Boris feels he can force the EU to change their mind.
Hammond and others understand that the Backstop is not negotiable so we already have the best deal we can get.
If this is the best deal we can get, but Parliament has made clear it isn’t acceptable, then we have no choice but to leave without a deal
At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:
As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.
No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.
Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.
The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
Carlotta pines from afar, concerned she will not be able to get union jack pants after brexit, emigrants are the worst losers.
Isn't that true for several prominent Nats, too?
*innocent face*
who may they be other than Stuart
Sir Sean Connery?
Alan Cumming (who bought a flat thinking it would also buy him a vote - it didn't)?
Brian Cox?
wow 3 people who live abroad, cancel indyref2 immediately, you people are sad sacks. Best you can do is whinge and lie, pathetic creatures.
At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:
As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.
No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.
Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.
The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
Carlotta pines from afar, concerned she will not be able to get union jack pants after brexit, emigrants are the worst losers.
Isn't that true for several prominent Nats, too?
*innocent face*
who may they be other than Stuart
Sir Sean Connery?
Alan Cumming (who bought a flat thinking it would also buy him a vote - it didn't)?
What happens if the rebels manage to pass a law compelling Boris to ask for an extension and they refuse? After all to comply with the law all he has to do is ask for one but he could do so in a way which will put them off. For example 'I don't want any extension but the UK Parliament has complled me to ask for one so that the UK can get a better deal off of you' .
Quite possibly - but I suspect there's more to it than tweeting a photo he's taken with his phone....
I believe this question has been asked and answered in the context of a previous indiscretion. I believe it is that the President cannot leak classified information because the act of him making it public declassifies it.
That is not the same as saying it is sensible - indeed, the capabilities of spying technologies should always be protected until they are otherwise in the public domain.
So @malcolmg I’m keen to hear your thoughts. When is the SNP going to act re. independence? After a GE? After no deal? Never?
What will they do when the ref. is refused?
They have the mandate so if they don't do it before 2021 election there will be huge trouble. Sturgeon has always said it will be after Brexit sorted and plan is supposedly for 2020. Whether they accelerate if as it seems we exit No Deal in October, but people want it and soon as possible.
Of all the bizarre political phenomena conjured by Brexit, the recent spectacle of liberal and even left-wing people beseeching the stars for rescue by Regina ex Machina must be the most intriguing and baffling.
Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
No, Boris feels he can force the EU to change their mind.
Hammond and others understand that the Backstop is not negotiable so we already have the best deal we can get.
If this is the best deal we can get, but Parliament has made clear it isn’t acceptable, then we have no choice but to leave without a deal
Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU willAnd yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
We've already got 'a half-decent deal,' far better th
It's just dumbarse MPs on both sides keep voting against it, because they're thick and don't understand it, partly because they can't read it.
Hammond, at least, did understand it and did vote for it, even though of all people he owed May no favours. So he's quite within his rights to blame everyone else for the mess we're in.
With hindsight, it's a real pity he let May stand as the unity candidate.
OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.
If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.
Any deal is about negotiating worse terms than we already have, in a managed way. It's why no-one is engaged or realistic. Leavers aren't prepared to admit it is necessarily a downgrade while Remainers don't want to be part of the downgrade.
Succintly put and spot on.
Completely wrong and failing to understand why people voted to leave
Remain voters use certain criteria (mainly economic but some philosophical) to judge membership of the EU. By these criteria it is a downgrade.
Leave voters have almost a different value judgement, notably putting less importance on economics. And so by their criteria it’s an upgrade.
Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU willAnd yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
We've already got 'a half-decent deal,' far better th
It's just dumbarse MPs on both sides keep voting against it, because they're thick and don't understand it, partly because they can't read it.
Hammond, at least, did understand it and did vote for it, even though of all people he owed May no favours. So he's quite within his rights to blame everyone else for the mess we're in.
With hindsight, it's a real pity he let May stand as the unity candidate.
OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.
If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.
Any deal is about negotiating worse terms than we already have, in a managed way. It's why no-one is engaged or realistic. Leavers aren't prepared to admit it is necessarily a downgrade while Remainers don't want to be part of the downgrade.
Succintly put and spot on.
Completely wrong and failing to understand why people voted to leave
Remain voters use certain criteria (mainly economic but some philosophical) to judge membership of the EU. By these criteria it is a downgrade.
Leave voters have almost a different value judgement, notably putting less importance on economics. And so by their criteria it’s an upgrade.
I’m sorry but that’s bollocks. Voters were told time and time again that they’d be economically better off by the Leave campaign.
What happens if the rebels manage to pass a law compelling Boris to ask for an extension and they refuse? After all to comply with the law all he has to do is ask for one but he could do so in a way which will put them off. For example 'I don't want any extension but the UK Parliament has complled me to ask for one so that the UK can get a better deal off of you' .
Or they say "sure you can have an extension. The price is your joining the Euro...."
The Executive is going to have the whip hand even if required to ask for an extension by the Legislature. Any legislation can't require the UK to take a deal, whatever is on offer.
Now, if you assume that the EU and the Conniving Remain C**** are all in cahoots, no doubt they will try and craft a form of words that binds the Executive. But that is a whole different ball of constitutional crisis wax.....
Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU willAnd yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
We've already got 'a half-decent deal,' far better th
It's just dumbarse MPs on both sides keep voting against it, because they're thick and don't understand it, partly because they can't read it.
Hammond, at least, did understand it and did vote for it, even though of all people he owed May no favours. So he's quite within his rights to blame everyone else for the mess we're in.
With hindsight, it's a real pity he let May stand as the unity candidate.
OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.
If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.
Any deal is about negotiating worse terms than we already have, in a managed way. It's why no-one is engaged or realistic. Leavers aren't prepared to admit it is necessarily a downgrade while Remainers don't want to be part of the downgrade.
Succintly put and spot on.
Completely wrong and failing to understand why people voted to leave
Remain voters use certain criteria (mainly economic but some philosophical) to judge membership of the EU. By these criteria it is a downgrade.
Leave voters have almost a different value judgement, notably putting less importance on economics. And so by their criteria it’s an upgrade.
They voted to leave because they believed Bozo about his £350M a week and no more foreigners, deluded fools. The country is full of morons.
I’m not disputing that, but that was’t the implication and you know it.
Democracy is not democracy when its based on dishonesty.
The implication was we couldn't spend that money as we wished, wasn't it?
No. You are rewriting history. The implication was that suddenly we’ll have an extra free £350m that wasn’t benefiting Britain to spend.
You know that is true and you can’t believe the suckers fell for it can you.
It’s grim. It really is.
No, the implication was we sent £350mn a year to Brussels, that it should be spent on other things, and not on things the EU tell us to spend it on. Isn't that true?
I’m not disputing that, but that was’t the implication and you know it.
Democracy is not democracy when its based on dishonesty.
The implication was we couldn't spend that money as we wished, wasn't it?
No. You are rewriting history. The implication was that suddenly we’ll have an extra free £350m that wasn’t benefiting Britain to spend.
You know that is true and you can’t believe the suckers fell for it can you.
It’s grim. It really is.
No, the implication was we sent £350mn a year to Brussels, and that it should be spent on other things, and not on things the EU tell us to spend it on. Isn't that true?
I’m not disputing that, but that was’t the implication and you know it.
Democracy is not democracy when its based on dishonesty.
The implication was we couldn't spend that money as we wished, wasn't it?
No. You are rewriting history. The implication was that suddenly we’ll have an extra free £350m that wasn’t benefiting Britain to spend.
You know that is true and you can’t believe the suckers fell for it can you.
It’s grim. It really is.
No, the implication was we sent £350mn a year to Brussels, and that it should be spent on other things, and not on things the EU tell us to spend it on. Isn't that true?
Lies. Total lies.
You just said you didn't dispute that a few moments ago!
Of all the bizarre political phenomena conjured by Brexit, the recent spectacle of liberal and even left-wing people beseeching the stars for rescue by Regina ex Machina must be the most intriguing and baffling.
@Wulfrun_Phil money won’t get in the way of the EU project. You are delusional. We’ll be a small island off the coast of a superpower.
Cheers pal. Keep taking the Remainer tablets.
For the rest of you, talk amongst yourselves. I have better things to do with the afternoon.
Its true. Its like those who think having a bit of money means you can bend everyone to your will and abuse them.
The EU is not poor. Waving money in their face is not going to change anything.
Regardless, one of the key points of the Leave campaign was that we send them too much money (another lie). Which is it?
The thing is, twelve billion pounds sounds a lot. Even if you accept the total, and it's pretty misleading, it's about twenty five pounds per head across the EU. I'm sure the EU have their price, but it's not that low.
I’m not disputing that, but that was’t the implication and you know it.
Democracy is not democracy when its based on dishonesty.
The implication was we couldn't spend that money as we wished, wasn't it?
No. You are rewriting history. The implication was that suddenly we’ll have an extra free £350m that wasn’t benefiting Britain to spend.
You know that is true and you can’t believe the suckers fell for it can you.
It’s grim. It really is.
To top it all they are getting shedloads more of the type of foreigners they really wanted to keep from coming as EU immigration has dropped. Deluded suckers.
Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
No, Boris feels he can force the EU to change their mind.
Hammond and others understand that the Backstop is not negotiable so we already have the best deal we can get.
If this is the best deal we can get, but Parliament has made clear it isn’t acceptable, then we have no choice but to leave without a deal
Since MPs have neither cancelled their holidays nor abandoned party conferences wheres the time shortage on "the most important issue of our generation" ?
They didn’t sit yesterday or today... that would have made up half the extra time lost
The Commons cannot be recalled unless the government asks for it to be recalled. See Standing Order 13.
As for how many days have been lost, a prorogation is not the same as a recess. A prorogation is imposed by the government. The House decides itself by majority vote whether to go into recess.
The government had not put down a motion for a conference recess, so it seems presumptuous to assume that the House would have approved one. The government might not even have proposed such a motion, since it would have presented opponents of the government with an opportunity further to control the order paper.
Hammond consi are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
We've already got 'a half-decent deal,' far better th
It's just dumbarse MPs on both sides keep voting against it, because they're thick and don't understand it, partly because they can't read it.
Hammond, at least, did understand it and did vote for it, even though of all people he owed May no favours. So he's quite within his rights to blame everyone else for the mess we're in.
With hindsight, it's a real pity he let May stand as the unity candidate.
OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.
If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.
Any deal is about negotiating worse terms than we already have, in a managed way. It's why no-one is engaged or realistic. Leavers aren't prepared to admit it is necessarily a downgrade while Remainers don't want to be part of the downgrade.
Succintly put and spot on.
Completely wrong and failing to understand why people voted to leave
Remain voters use certain criteria (mainly economic but some philosophical) to judge membership of the EU. By these criteria it is a downgrade.
Leave voters have almost a different value judgement, notably putting less importance on economics. And so by their criteria it’s an upgrade.
I’m sorry but that’s bollocks. Voters were told time and time again that they’d be economically better off by the Leave campaign.
And what did the Remain campaign and much of the business community say? How quickly was Stuart Rose silenced?
I don't think a dozen will be enough. If it were a question of a simple vote, maybe, but it's not.
The striking thing is that if Stewart's estimate is true, 95% of Tory MPs have fallen into line behind this suicidal policy.
It's so very disappointing that Stewart is failing to move on. There has to be a degree to which you accept referenda, and you accept leadership elections, and also you accept general elections.
Admittedly tough times, but he surely has to give the winner of the Tory leadership race at least a little bit of room.
@Wulfrun_Phil money won’t get in the way of the EU project. You are delusional. We’ll be a small island off the coast of a superpower.
Cheers pal. Keep taking the Remainer tablets.
For the rest of you, talk amongst yourselves. I have better things to do with the afternoon.
Its true. Its like those who think having a bit of money means you can bend everyone to your will and abuse them.
The EU is not poor. Waving money in their face is not going to change anything.
Regardless, one of the key points of the Leave campaign was that we send them too much money (another lie). Which is it?
Claiming the UK sends them too much money is a lie? I thought it was an opinion.
You know what I mean.
The £350mn gross figure? I think that was also in the ONS' pink book of the same year.
It was misleading and you know it.
I thought it was quite accurate.
You know for a fact that the implication that we’ll have 350m a week to spend on other things is just incorrect.
I’m sorry but it’s pathetic.
Well half of it disappeared into the EU coffers, and the rest we were told how to spend it. So we didn't have control over that money.
I’m not disputing that, but that was’t the implication and you know it.
Democracy is not democracy when its based on dishonesty.
You're falling into the Cummings trap that the more you argue that It is not x it’s x-y which is still a big number helps the ram the message to those who don’t comprehend that £250m is actually not all that much that it would all go to the NHS. We’re doing the same over stop the coup, reinforcing people v parliament message. We should all go home refuse to vote for anything and make him leave with no deal. If it’s project fear.. fair enough if not then we will be back in in 18 months.
A good header, MD. I’ll have to think about whether the various opposition factions are all facing ‘certain death’, though. Off for a walk to cllear my head.
Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU willAnd yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.
If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won
Completely wrong and failing to understand why people voted to leave
Remain voters use certain criteria (mainly economic but some philosophical) to judge membership of the EU. By these criteria it is a downgrade.
Leave voters have almost a different value judgement, notably putting less importance on economics. And so by their criteria it’s an upgrade.
I’m sorry but that’s bollocks. Voters were told time and time again that they’d be economically better off by the Leave campaign.
*clears throat*
Perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, the relative positioning and lead messages of the two campaigns also allows for an entirely divergent group of people to tend towards Leave: those willing to accept there might be an economic cost, and even buy into the figures and forecasts provided by the Treasury, Bank of England and IMF, but consider this to be a “price worth paying”. When Arron Banks suggests similar he is laughed at, but as easy as it might seem to dismiss this argument out of hand when it comes from a wealthy individual and prominent donor to UKIP, personal experience suggests that this concept might resonate with a group who will worry the Remain campaign far, far more: pensioners. Many of whom will remember a Britain before EU membership.
@Wulfrun_Phil money won’t get in the way of the EU project. You are delusional. We’ll be a small island off the coast of a superpower.
Cheers pal. Keep taking the Remainer tablets.
For the rest of you, talk amongst yourselves. I have better things to do with the afternoon.
Its true. Its like those who think having a bit of money means you can bend everyone to your will and abuse them.
The EU is not poor. Waving money in their face is not going to change anything.
Regardless, one of the key points of the Leave campaign was that we send them too much money (another lie). Which is it?
The thing is, twelve billion pounds sounds a lot. Even if you accept the total, and it's pretty misleading, it's about twenty five pounds per head across the EU. I'm sure the EU have their price, but it's not that low.
Assuming we do actually leave the EU, the UK will be looking for leverage. What does it have that the EU and its member states want. And use that leverage to get the stuff the UK wants: market access, rules to be drafted n to take account of UK interests.etc.
Problem for the UK is that as a consortium of everyone that matters in Europe apart from the UK itself, the EU has vastly more leverage.
So what does the UK have that the EU wants? Diplomatic support for EU initiatives definitely. Participation in the EU army would be interesting particularly to Germany, although maybe a sensitive topic in the UK. Very quickly the UK will get to money. If the UK offers enough money to bridge budget gaps or fund projects that becomes very interesting to the EU.
I expect the UK to spend no less cash after leaving to buy influence than it did as membership fees.
I don't think a dozen will be enough. If it were a question of a simple vote, maybe, but it's not.
The striking thing is that if Stewart's estimate is true, 95% of Tory MPs have fallen into line behind this suicidal policy.
He was not accurate about the effective majority which is 3 - not 1 - because Elphicke will support the Government despite no longer having the Tory Whip. Circa 20 Tory rebels probably needed.
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...). The trouble with this is that eventually they lose the power either to persuade or influence.
Our eventual departure from the EU and a BoJo victory at the next election is going to come as a nasty shock to many here..
Not if the Tories are annihilated at the next election.
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...).
Not how I've read them but if you want to write something non-bonkers and send it to OGH he'll generally publish other takes...
You show me an article here that is pro-Brexit, Pro-Bojo and pro the suspension of 4 days of Parliament's sitting. There are plenty of articles in the rest of the mainstream press. Even the Guardian occasionally runs such an article.
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...).
Not how I've read them but if you want to write something non-bonkers and send it to OGH he'll generally publish other takes...
You show me an article here that is pro-Brexit, Pro-Bojo and pro the suspension of 4 days of Parliament's sitting. There are plenty of articles in the rest of the mainstream press. Even the Guardian occasionally runs such an article.
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...).
Not how I've read them but if you want to write something non-bonkers and send it to OGH he'll generally publish other takes...
You show me an article here that is pro-Brexit, Pro-Bojo and pro the suspension of 4 days of Parliament's sitting. There are plenty of articles in the rest of the mainstream press. Even the Guardian occasionally runs such an article.
Never on PB. Never.....
We’ll write one then it could be quite amusing
yes id like to see it, perhaps it will be full of convincing arguments
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...).
Not how I've read them but if you want to write something non-bonkers and send it to OGH he'll generally publish other takes...
You show me an article here that is pro-Brexit, Pro-Bojo and pro the suspension of 4 days of Parliament's sitting. There are plenty of articles in the rest of the mainstream press. Even the Guardian occasionally runs such an article.
Never on PB. Never.....
We’ll write one then it could be quite amusing
yes id like to see it, perhaps it will be full of convincing arguments
Actually Alister Meeks and most of our regular thread headers could write one in that vein but we will await you contribution and then when it’s not published you can post it anyway. Put up or f....
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...).
Not how I've read them but if you want to write something non-bonkers and send it to OGH he'll generally publish other takes...
You show me an article here that is pro-Brexit, Pro-Bojo and pro the suspension of 4 days of Parliament's sitting. There are plenty of articles in the rest of the mainstream press. Even the Guardian occasionally runs such an article.
Never on PB. Never.....
We’ll write one then it could be quite amusing
HYUD provides more than sufficient Pro-Bojo comments to make up for any lacking in the headers.
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...).
Not how I've read them but if you want to write something non-bonkers and send it to OGH he'll generally publish other takes...
You show me an article here that is pro-Brexit, Pro-Bojo and pro the suspension of 4 days of Parliament's sitting. There are plenty of articles in the rest of the mainstream press. Even the Guardian occasionally runs such an article.
Never on PB. Never.....
It's a fair point. Johnson is prepared to make a desert and call it Brexit*
That's new. As a defeatist Remainer, May was never prepared to wreck everything.
(* To add to the classical tone of this piece. And of course the Romans did that to other people, not themselves)
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...).
Not how I've read them but if you want to write something non-bonkers and send it to OGH he'll generally publish other takes...
You show me an article here that is pro-Brexit, Pro-Bojo and pro the suspension of 4 days of Parliament's sitting. There are plenty of articles in the rest of the mainstream press. Even the Guardian occasionally runs such an article.
Never on PB. Never.....
We’ll write one then it could be quite amusing
HYUD provides more than sufficient Pro-Bojo comments to make up for any lacking in the headers.
Unfortunately without analysis or commentary which devalues his input because there is more to life than the latest opinion poll
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...).
Not how I've read them but if you want to write something non-bonkers and send it to OGH he'll generally publish other takes...
You show me an article here that is pro-Brexit, Pro-Bojo and pro the suspension of 4 days of Parliament's sitting. There are plenty of articles in the rest of the mainstream press. Even the Guardian occasionally runs such an article.
Never on PB. Never.....
It's a fair point. Johnson is prepared to make a desert and call it Brexit*
That's new. As a defeatist Remainer, May was never prepared to wreck everything.
(* To add to the classical tone of this piece. And of course the Romans did that to other people, not themselves)
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...).
Not how I've read them but if you want to write something non-bonkers and send it to OGH he'll generally publish other takes...
You show me an article here that is pro-Brexit, Pro-Bojo and pro the suspension of 4 days of Parliament's sitting. There are plenty of articles in the rest of the mainstream press. Even the Guardian occasionally runs such an article.
Never on PB. Never.....
We’ll write one then it could be quite amusing
HYUD provides more than sufficient Pro-Bojo comments to make up for any lacking in the headers.
Unfortunately without analysis or commentary which devalues his input because there is more to life than the latest opinion poll
This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...).
Not how I've read them but if you want to write something non-bonkers and send it to OGH he'll generally publish other takes...
You show me an article here that is pro-Brexit, Pro-Bojo and pro the suspension of 4 days of Parliament's sitting. There are plenty of articles in the rest of the mainstream press. Even the Guardian occasionally runs such an article.
Never on PB. Never.....
We’ll write one then it could be quite amusing
HYUD provides more than sufficient Pro-Bojo comments to make up for any lacking in the headers.
Unfortunately without analysis or commentary which devalues his input because there is more to life than the latest opinion poll
Yes; waiting for the next opinion poll.
Well they are like buses you wait ten days without one and the three come at the same time
Corbyn says next week is the last chance to stop a no deal Brexit. I assume he’s ruled out whipping his MPs to vote for May’s deal then...
Next week is the last chance to initiate a sequence of events which would permit a General Election to be held before October 31st - if we make it to the proposed prorogation without MPs succeeding in blocking it, then that specific route will be firmly closed by the time they come back after conference season. But the option to throw out the current Government and install an alternative amenable to asking for an extension (or revoking A50) is possible almost up until the last minute, I would've thought...?
@Morris_Dancer Interesting thread header. Thank you. Looking at the link I thought it was a typo for the Battle of Ipsos (MORI).
Good evening, everybody.
I thought that he'd mis-spelt the Battle of Issus, until I started to read on of course. I bow to @Morris_Dancer's superior knowledge of ancient history.
Corbyn says next week is the last chance to stop a nodeal Brexit. I assume he’s ruled out whipping his MPs to vote for May’s deal then...
Also, what can be done next week that definitively can’t be done between Oct 15th and Oct 31st?
I assume it's like the old "24 hours to save the NHS" chestnut.
The EU summit is on October 17th - I suspect that has a lot to do with it.
Can't A50 be revoked up until October 31st if the PM was so inclined?
Yes as long as it is not obvious that the intention is to not then reverse the decision the next day and start the two years over again without some fundamental moves to change the status quo
Comments
And of course the EU will negotiate a great deal with a counter party that will recommend against its acceptance.
Do you realise how stupid that looks?
For the rest of you, talk amongst yourselves. I have better things to do with the afternoon.
Civic?
Or Joyous?
*innocent face*
Brian Cox?
Quite possibly - but I suspect there's more to it than tweeting a photo he's taken with his phone....
The EU is not poor. Waving money in their face is not going to change anything.
Regardless, one of the key points of the Leave campaign was that we send them too much money (another lie). Which is it?
What will they do when the ref. is refused?
After all to comply with the law all he has to do is ask for one but he could do so in a way which will put them off.
For example 'I don't want any extension but the UK Parliament has complled me to ask for one so that the UK can get a better deal off of you' .
That is not the same as saying it is sensible - indeed, the capabilities of spying technologies should always be protected until they are otherwise in the public domain.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/queen-brexit-intervention-meme-position
I’m sorry but it’s pathetic.
Democracy is not democracy when its based on dishonesty.
Remain voters use certain criteria (mainly economic but some philosophical) to judge membership of the EU. By these criteria it is a downgrade.
Leave voters have almost a different value judgement, notably putting less importance on economics. And so by their criteria it’s an upgrade.
The Executive is going to have the whip hand even if required to ask for an extension by the Legislature. Any legislation can't require the UK to take a deal, whatever is on offer.
Now, if you assume that the EU and the Conniving Remain C**** are all in cahoots, no doubt they will try and craft a form of words that binds the Executive. But that is a whole different ball of constitutional crisis wax.....
You know that is true and you can’t believe the suckers fell for it can you.
It’s grim. It really is.
Even if you accept the total, and it's pretty misleading, it's about twenty five pounds per head across the EU. I'm sure the EU have their price, but it's not that low.
As for how many days have been lost, a prorogation is not the same as a recess. A prorogation is imposed by the government. The House decides itself by majority vote whether to go into recess.
The government had not put down a motion for a conference recess, so it seems presumptuous to assume that the House would have approved one. The government might not even have proposed such a motion, since it would have presented opponents of the government with an opportunity further to control the order paper.
Admittedly tough times, but he surely has to give the winner of the Tory leadership race at least a little bit of room.
Think I’ll go out for dinner now.
Perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, the relative positioning and lead messages of the two campaigns also allows for an entirely divergent group of people to tend towards Leave: those willing to accept there might be an economic cost, and even buy into the figures and forecasts provided by the Treasury, Bank of England and IMF, but consider this to be a “price worth paying”. When Arron Banks suggests similar he is laughed at, but as easy as it might seem to dismiss this argument out of hand when it comes from a wealthy individual and prominent donor to UKIP, personal experience suggests that this concept might resonate with a group who will worry the Remain campaign far, far more: pensioners. Many of whom will remember a Britain before EU membership.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/16/mortimer-with-a-tip-for-the-more-adventurous-gamblers/
Problem for the UK is that as a consortium of everyone that matters in Europe apart from the UK itself, the EU has vastly more leverage.
So what does the UK have that the EU wants? Diplomatic support for EU initiatives definitely. Participation in the EU army would be interesting particularly to Germany, although maybe a sensitive topic in the UK. Very quickly the UK will get to money. If the UK offers enough money to bridge budget gaps or fund projects that becomes very interesting to the EU.
I expect the UK to spend no less cash after leaving to buy influence than it did as membership fees.
French motor racing driver Anthoine Hubert has died in an F2 crash at Spa.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/motorsport/49537761
Nandy is proving to be a mature politician.
Never on PB. Never.....
If either of the first two then its says a lot more about you than it does about the poster..
That's new. As a defeatist Remainer, May was never prepared to wreck everything.
(* To add to the classical tone of this piece. And of course the Romans did that to other people, not themselves)
Also, what can be done next week that definitively can’t be done between Oct 15th and Oct 31st?
Good evening, everybody.
And good evening to you too.