politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters think that Sadiq’s still on course for victory foll
Comments
-
Decision this afternoon, that could set a precedent for future actions and injunctions.
https://twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt?ref_src=twsrc^tfw0 -
If you'd bothered to read the Vote Leave "new deal" article I'd linked to at the weekend you'd know the answer to that.Richard_Nabavi said:Did Michael Gove really say this, as reported by the Guardian?
Gove says there would be no need to trigger article 50 immediately. When Greenland left the EU, it did not trigger article 50 at all.
If so, what has he been smoking?
But it's becoming pretty clear you've made your mind up now and aren't interested in reserving judgement.0 -
It's the end of injunctions for globally recognisable celebrities if the appeal goes against those in this case. And probably those less famous too.Sandpit said:Decision this afternoon, that could set a precedent for future actions and injunctions.
https://twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt?ref_src=twsrc^tfw0 -
So explain to me why the EU will offer us all the benefits of the Single Market without any of the costs?FattyBolger said:
Works for me!TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeez.CarlottaVance said:@georgeeaton Vote Leave spokesmen confirm stance: free trade with no free movement, no budget contributions and no supremacy of EU law.
So no EFTA, No EEA......splendid isolation it is then....clarity at last....0 -
The Guild navigators, gifted with limited prescience, had made the fatal decision: they'd chosen always the clear, safe course that leads ever downward into stagnation. Frank Herbert, Dune.0
-
If Robert is around, are you still in favour of Brexit in light of today's announcement?
Would be good to hear from you.0 -
PJS must be a law firm's wet dream.0
-
So after attacking Vote Leave for months on not having a clear plan for Brexit, Remainers and the "undecided" are now immediately switching to attacking the substance of the plan.
Disappointing, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I predicted as much in February.0 -
Do the public really care? Do they really have strong feelings about any of this?AlastairMeeks said:
I get all of that. But it's a complete blind alley for Leave. It's detail that the public is going to find baffling and irrelevant to their decision-making process. And it sounds as if Leave are frit of actually Leaving.
There was some polling yesterday where 50% of the public said they were neutral/don't know about whether they like or dislike the EU.
That implies to me that a lot of people are happy to live with whatever the result is. They just don't see this as a big deal and are unlikely to engage.
0 -
I've certainly made my mind up on the point that Michael Gove was (unusually for him) out with the fairies when he said that, given that Article 50 didn't exist until quarter of a century after Greenland left the EEC.Casino_Royale said:
If you'd bothered to read the Vote Leave "new deal" article I'd linked to at the weekend you'd know the answer to that.Richard_Nabavi said:Did Michael Gove really say this, as reported by the Guardian?
Gove says there would be no need to trigger article 50 immediately. When Greenland left the EU, it did not trigger article 50 at all.
If so, what has he been smoking?
But it's becoming pretty clear you've made your mind up now and aren't interested in reserving judgement.0 -
That's natural. They just can't envisage a future for the UK outwith the EU (well, they can, they envisage that we'd be living in a society like the Children of Men).Casino_Royale said:So after attacking Vote Leave for months on not having a clear plan for Brexit, Remainers and the "undecided" are now immediately switching to attacking the substance of the plan.
Disappointing, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I predicted as much in February.0 -
Still probably not Carter-Ruck's most famous clients, or even in the top 10Pulpstar said:PJS must be a law firm's wet dream.
0 -
It is a prospectus. It is also profoundly infantile, suggesting that there is nothing that need be compromised on at any point because all of it can be delivered cost-free (oh, and by the way, we don't just want to leave, we want to see the whole damn thing collapse).Casino_Royale said:So after attacking Vote Leave for months on not having a clear plan for Brexit, Remainers and the "undecided" are now immediately switching to attacking the substance of the plan.
Disappointing, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I predicted as much in February.
It's as though the Scottish independence campaign had been led by Dair.0 -
Right, so you're a firm Remain supporter.Richard_Nabavi said:
I've certainly made my mind up on the point that Michael Gove was (unusually for him) out with the fairies when he said that, given that Article 50 didn't exist until quarter of a century after Greenland left the EEC.Casino_Royale said:
If you'd bothered to read the Vote Leave "new deal" article I'd linked to at the weekend you'd know the answer to that.Richard_Nabavi said:Did Michael Gove really say this, as reported by the Guardian?
Gove says there would be no need to trigger article 50 immediately. When Greenland left the EU, it did not trigger article 50 at all.
If so, what has he been smoking?
But it's becoming pretty clear you've made your mind up now and aren't interested in reserving judgement.
Well, I'm glad we've cleared that up now.0 -
No, that's completely unfair. The objection from the Remain side, as well as from undecided people such as myself, has always been that the Leavers wanted to have their cake and eat it. The fact that they didn't come up with a coherent plan was, in my case, a primary driver in making me decide to vote Remain.Casino_Royale said:So after attacking Vote Leave for months on not having a clear plan for Brexit, Remainers and the "undecided" are now immediately switching to attacking the substance of the plan.
Disappointing, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I predicted as much in February.
Nothing much has changed on that, except that (as I predicted here, for which I was attacked by the usual suspects) it looks at though the EEA option is out. Fair enough, but what remains is not credible. It takes two to tango (or 28 in this case), and claiming we can have full access to the Single Market without freedom of movement and without contributions to the EU budget is still as incoherent as the case has always been.0 -
Vote Leave finally taking the more politically-fruitful route, rather than this EEA/EFTA nonsense.
If they want to convince people to take the risk of leaving, they had to atleast promise the big problem as the public sees it (immigration) would be sorted, which staying in the EEA would not have done.0 -
Yes. It seems so.Sean_F said:
That's natural. They just can't envisage a future for the UK outwith the EU (well, they can, they envisage that we'd be living in a society like the Children of Men).Casino_Royale said:So after attacking Vote Leave for months on not having a clear plan for Brexit, Remainers and the "undecided" are now immediately switching to attacking the substance of the plan.
Disappointing, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I predicted as much in February.0 -
You wouldn't know.TheScreamingEagles said:
Still probably not Carter-Ruck's most famous clients, or even in the top 10Pulpstar said:PJS must be a law firm's wet dream.
0 -
But if economics is the primary concern of the floating voter, then it is a strategy that will see only the already decided turn out for Brexit. They make their short term point, but lose the war - perhaps permanently.Danny565 said:Vote Leave finally taking the more politically-fruitful route, rather than this EEA/EFTA nonsense.
If they want to convince people to take the risk of leaving, they had to atleast promise the big problem as the public sees it (immigration) would be sorted, which staying in the EEA would not have done.0 -
Yes. In one full swoop you've gone from saying it's incoherent to saying it's incredible.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's completely unfair. The objection from the Remain side, as well as from undecided people such as myself, has always been that the Leavers wanted to have their cake and eat it. The fact that they didn't come up with a coherent plan was, in my case, a primary driver in making me decide to vote Remain.Casino_Royale said:So after attacking Vote Leave for months on not having a clear plan for Brexit, Remainers and the "undecided" are now immediately switching to attacking the substance of the plan.
Disappointing, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I predicted as much in February.
Nothing much has changed on that, except that (as I predicted here, for which I was attacked by the usual suspects) it looks at though the EEA option is out. Fair enough, but what remains is not credible. It takes two to tango (or 28 in this case), and claiming we can have full access to the Single Market without freedom of movement and without contributions to the EU budget is still as incoherent as the case has always been.
I think the only way you'd be convinced is if it was pre-negotiated, on the table, with a wet ink signature from all EU members and parties, and ready to endorse in a referendum. In which case, of course, the PM would be recommending Leave and everyone would know and be expecting we'd Leave.
You must have known that was never going to happen.
So what am I missing?0 -
Not sure how you get from my being surprised at a piece of idiocy by Gove to my being a Remain supporter, but, yes, I am now a firm but marginal Remain supporter, i.e. I have decided, on the balance of the arguments which we have exhaustively examined here, firmly but reluctantly to vote Remain. This is mainly because the lack of a coherent alternative means that the benefit of leaving in terms of improved sovereignty over a limited range of issues doesn't outweigh the economic damage IMO.Casino_Royale said:
Right, so you're a firm Remain supporter.Richard_Nabavi said:
I've certainly made my mind up on the point that Michael Gove was (unusually for him) out with the fairies when he said that, given that Article 50 didn't exist until quarter of a century after Greenland left the EEC.Casino_Royale said:
If you'd bothered to read the Vote Leave "new deal" article I'd linked to at the weekend you'd know the answer to that.Richard_Nabavi said:Did Michael Gove really say this, as reported by the Guardian?
Gove says there would be no need to trigger article 50 immediately. When Greenland left the EU, it did not trigger article 50 at all.
If so, what has he been smoking?
But it's becoming pretty clear you've made your mind up now and aren't interested in reserving judgement.
Well, I'm glad we've cleared that up now.0 -
Yes, it's a prospectus of what the UK wants.AlastairMeeks said:
It is a prospectus. It is also profoundly infantile, suggesting that there is nothing that need be compromised on at any point because all of it can be delivered cost-free (oh, and by the way, we don't just want to leave, we want to see the whole damn thing collapse).Casino_Royale said:So after attacking Vote Leave for months on not having a clear plan for Brexit, Remainers and the "undecided" are now immediately switching to attacking the substance of the plan.
Disappointing, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I predicted as much in February.
It's as though the Scottish independence campaign had been led by Dair.
I went through the Vote Leave case on Sunday. I mentioned what we'd want and what the EU would want, and where we might need to negotiate to reach a deal.
I thought it was very good.
Do you have the details behind 'seeing the whole EU collapse'?0 -
Parties respond to voters, and voters (in the main) regard local elections as "merely a series of referenda on national issues".dr_spyn said:Postal voting forms turned up in the post today for local elections. Had pathetic picture leaflet of Labour candidates with little information about their intentions at Council Level. Nothing from Conservatives, Lib Dems, UKIP et al.
Pity that the parties think that the local elections are merely a series of referenda on national issues. I'm not sure that that a lack of information at local level helps boost turnout.0 -
0
-
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/722388158441197568Casino_Royale said:
Yes, it's a prospectus of what the UK wants.AlastairMeeks said:
It is a prospectus. It is also profoundly infantile, suggesting that there is nothing that need be compromised on at any point because all of it can be delivered cost-free (oh, and by the way, we don't just want to leave, we want to see the whole damn thing collapse).Casino_Royale said:So after attacking Vote Leave for months on not having a clear plan for Brexit, Remainers and the "undecided" are now immediately switching to attacking the substance of the plan.
Disappointing, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I predicted as much in February.
It's as though the Scottish independence campaign had been led by Dair.
I went through the Vote Leave case on Sunday. I mentioned what we'd want and what the EU would want, and where we might need to negotiate to reach a deal.
I thought it was very good.
Do you have the details behind 'seeing the whole EU collapse'?0 -
I'd like an Aston Martin, a winning lottery ticket and world peace. If I ask Michael Gove nicely, will he promise it to me?0
-
Each directive has at it's header, 'This is a directive with EEA relevance'. If it does not, then it does not apply to the EEA. Competencies held under the EEA are frozen at the point of its inception (i.e. the ECJ cannot be judicially active in the same way as it can in the community)DavidL said:
Your first link sets out the position correctly. Some directives have, by agreement, been incorporated into the EEA agreement and are applicable (or alternatively the State has undertaken to have equivalent provision) to EEA countries.Richard_Nabavi said:
As I understand it, it's much more than that:DavidL said:EEA members do not have to sign up to the Social Chapter. Much of our employment law would also not be covered. Basically we would be left with prohibitions against discrimination against EU citizens looking to work here.
http://www.eftasurv.int/internal-market-affairs/areas-of-competence/persons/employment-law-and-health-and-safety/
And:
If the UK stays in the EEA, the experience of Norway indicates that the UK will probably have to accept – without having any say – much of EU employment and social policy, including directives that cover: working time; acquired rights; part-time workers; collective redundancies; parental leave; and equal treatment. “Many employers would regard this as a high price to pay,” says Professor Barnard.
Hogan Lovells partner Elizabeth Slattery points out that this status could result in the UK still being bound by the Working Time Directive (WTD), with the added chance that the EU may remove the UK’s working time opt-out, “which many businesses would see as the worst of all worlds”. The opt-out allows workers who are 18 or over to choose to opt out of the 48-hour limit imposed by the Directive.
http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/british-exit-eu-cut-employment-red-tape/
It is not correct to state that the EEA countries are obliged to implement any employment related nonsense that the EU comes up with. As you will see from the link the number of directives that are covered in this way is small and a tiny proportion of EU employment legislation.
In the same way they might agree to follow EU guidance on certain social matters although I am struggling to think of an example. Again that would be a matter on which the parties would have to agree.
I respectfully disagree with Elizabeth Slattery. We would only still be bound by the WTD as long as we chose to be and kept it as a part of our law. If we repeal it or amend it that would be a matter for us.0 -
The £1m is seemingly no sacrifice at all.Sandpit said:
He's been told he's got to pay both sides' costs if today's ruling goes against him. Estimated at a million quid, to protect the names that everyone knows already. He obviously has more money than sense.Pulpstar said:PJS must be a law firm's wet dream.
0 -
The votes of people "obsessed" by immigration are not enough on their own to win the referendum for "Leave" -- but still, "Leave" can't win without them either. If the message had caught on that leaving the EU wouldn't make any changes to immigration policy anyway, then I would've expected mass abstentions from people who were mainly concerned about immigration and not really bothered about the more abstract "sovereignty" arguments.TonyE said:
But if economics is the primary concern of the floating voter, then it is a strategy that will see only the already decided turn out for Brexit. They make their short term point, but lose the war - perhaps permanently.Danny565 said:Vote Leave finally taking the more politically-fruitful route, rather than this EEA/EFTA nonsense.
If they want to convince people to take the risk of leaving, they had to atleast promise the big problem as the public sees it (immigration) would be sorted, which staying in the EEA would not have done.0 -
How many floating voters will actually vote?TonyE said:
But if economics is the primary concern of the floating voter, then it is a strategy that will see only the already decided turn out for Brexit. They make their short term point, but lose the war - perhaps permanently.Danny565 said:Vote Leave finally taking the more politically-fruitful route, rather than this EEA/EFTA nonsense.
If they want to convince people to take the risk of leaving, they had to atleast promise the big problem as the public sees it (immigration) would be sorted, which staying in the EEA would not have done.
The Leave/Remain debate that I witness elsewhere breaks down into two subjects repeatedly - migration and the fear of a Tory government unshackled from the EU.
The EU is viewed as a leash to keep the Tories on.0 -
Preparing a coherent alternative requires a lot of work, as well as an honest and careful assesment of what's politically possible. The Leave side are still trying to have their cake and eat it, as well as waving away legitimate concerns and (most tellingly for me) impugning the independence of every serious commentator or institution who raise legitimate concerns about the economic or political realities.Casino_Royale said:Yes. In one full swoop you've gone from saying it's incoherent to saying it's incredible.
I think the only way you'd be convinced is if it was pre-negotiated, on the table, with a wet ink signature from all EU members and parties, and ready to endorse in a referendum. In which case, of course, the PM would be recommending Leave and everyone would know and be expecting we'd Leave.
You must have known that was never going to happen.
So what am I missing?
Was it ever going to be possible to persuade me to vote Leave? In retrospect, now that I know a lot more about the issues than I did at the start of the discussions of the various options, probably not; there doesn't seem to be an alternative which actually works better than the status quo. However, that doesn't mean my mind was made up in advance, it wasn't. I made up my mind fairly definitively around the end of 2015.0 -
How a law firm manages to still convince clients this is anything other than idiotic action is beyond me.Tissue_Price said:
The £1m is seemingly no sacrifice at all.Sandpit said:
He's been told he's got to pay both sides' costs if today's ruling goes against him. Estimated at a million quid, to protect the names that everyone knows already. He obviously has more money than sense.Pulpstar said:PJS must be a law firm's wet dream.
0 -
Fees. Massive, massive fees.Plato_Says said:How a law firm manages to still convince clients this is anything other than idiotic action is beyond me.
Tissue_Price said:
The £1m is seemingly no sacrifice at all.Sandpit said:
He's been told he's got to pay both sides' costs if today's ruling goes against him. Estimated at a million quid, to protect the names that everyone knows already. He obviously has more money than sense.Pulpstar said:PJS must be a law firm's wet dream.
0 -
Clients sometimes decide to do things against their professional advice.Plato_Says said:How a law firm manages to still convince clients this is anything other than idiotic action is beyond me.
Tissue_Price said:
The £1m is seemingly no sacrifice at all.Sandpit said:
He's been told he's got to pay both sides' costs if today's ruling goes against him. Estimated at a million quid, to protect the names that everyone knows already. He obviously has more money than sense.Pulpstar said:PJS must be a law firm's wet dream.
Carter-Ruck himself supposedly used to say that he ran his practice off the clients who took his advice and his Rolls-Royce off the clients who didn't.0 -
It's worked, to some extent. The story will have less impact when it breaks than if it had been a shock Sunday tabloid splash. And plenty of people will feel more sympathy for the concerned because of all this. Expensive, mind.Plato_Says said:How a law firm manages to still convince clients this is anything other than idiotic action is beyond me.
Tissue_Price said:
The £1m is seemingly no sacrifice at all.Sandpit said:
He's been told he's got to pay both sides' costs if today's ruling goes against him. Estimated at a million quid, to protect the names that everyone knows already. He obviously has more money than sense.Pulpstar said:PJS must be a law firm's wet dream.
0 -
You would not trigger article 50 immediately, you would have framing talks with the other national leaders of the EU and break down what needed to be agreed first.david_herdson said:
Greenland didn't trigger Article 50 because it didn't exist at the time (Article 50, not Greenland).Richard_Nabavi said:Did Michael Gove really say this, as reported by the Guardian?
Gove says there would be no need to trigger article 50 immediately. When Greenland left the EU, it did not trigger article 50 at all.
If so, what has he been smoking?
But that's a technicality. Certainly there might be some way of leaving that didn't involve Article 50 - as Greenland proved is possible - but why wouldn't you use it given that's what it's there for, and that not using it would send out very mixed signals?
But there is no doubt that Article 50 will be triggered, because it is part of an international treaty that we have signed up to and ratified, therefore we must obey that which we have agreed to obey.0 -
What's wrong with the Aston Martin you've got?AlastairMeeks said:I'd like an Aston Martin, a winning lottery ticket and world peace. If I ask Michael Gove nicely, will he promise it to me?
0 -
Lawyers are like bookies, the clients they like are the stupid ones.AlastairMeeks said:Clients sometimes decide to do things against their professional advice.
Carter-Ruck himself supposedly used to say that he ran his practice off the clients who took his advice and his Rolls-Royce off the clients who didn't.0 -
I love all my clients equally. So long as they pay the bills.Richard_Nabavi said:
Lawyers are like bookies, the clients they like are the stupid ones.AlastairMeeks said:Clients sometimes decide to do things against their professional advice.
Carter-Ruck himself supposedly used to say that he ran his practice off the clients who took his advice and his Rolls-Royce off the clients who didn't.0 -
I would expect those obsessed with immigration to go out and vote Leave, whatever version of that they were offered. I can't imagine any committed leaver sitting on their hands on June 23rd over whether immigration will reduce immediately or later.Danny565 said:
The votes of people "obsessed" by immigration are not enough on their own to win the referendum for "Leave" -- but still, "Leave" can't win without them either. If the message had caught on that leaving the EU wouldn't make any changes to immigration policy anyway, then I would've expected mass abstentions from people who were mainly concerned about immigration and not really bothered about the more abstract "sovereignty" arguments.TonyE said:
But if economics is the primary concern of the floating voter, then it is a strategy that will see only the already decided turn out for Brexit. They make their short term point, but lose the war - perhaps permanently.Danny565 said:Vote Leave finally taking the more politically-fruitful route, rather than this EEA/EFTA nonsense.
If they want to convince people to take the risk of leaving, they had to atleast promise the big problem as the public sees it (immigration) would be sorted, which staying in the EEA would not have done.
The soft vote is about the money - its middle class, middle England. It votes Tory with it's nose held and its pocket book in hand.0 -
The million dollar question!chestnut said:
How many floating voters will actually vote?TonyE said:
But if economics is the primary concern of the floating voter, then it is a strategy that will see only the already decided turn out for Brexit. They make their short term point, but lose the war - perhaps permanently.Danny565 said:Vote Leave finally taking the more politically-fruitful route, rather than this EEA/EFTA nonsense.
If they want to convince people to take the risk of leaving, they had to atleast promise the big problem as the public sees it (immigration) would be sorted, which staying in the EEA would not have done.
The Leave/Remain debate that I witness elsewhere breaks down into two subjects repeatedly - migration and the fear of a Tory government unshackled from the EU.
The EU is viewed as a leash to keep the Tories on.0 -
Quite. Carter-*uck are getting (very well) paid either way.AlastairMeeks said:
Clients sometimes decide to do things against their professional advice.Plato_Says said:How a law firm manages to still convince clients this is anything other than idiotic action is beyond me.
Tissue_Price said:
The £1m is seemingly no sacrifice at all.Sandpit said:
He's been told he's got to pay both sides' costs if today's ruling goes against him. Estimated at a million quid, to protect the names that everyone knows already. He obviously has more money than sense.Pulpstar said:PJS must be a law firm's wet dream.
Carter-Ruck himself supposedly used to say that he ran his practice off the clients who took his advice and his Rolls-Royce off the clients who didn't.
What amazes me is that PJS still thinks he can still suppress the story which everyone knows already, even at the risk of creating a precedent in the Supreme Court against anything similar in the future.0 -
Whilst that's true, I don't think there could be much of a delay in practice between a Leave result and pulling the Article 50 lever, for four reasons:TonyE said:You would not trigger article 50 immediately, you would have framing talks with the other national leaders of the EU and break down what needed to be agreed first.
1) Politically, it would open the government up to charges from the usual suspects that they were procrastinating
2) Economically, the uncertainty is going to be damaging enough as it is, without prolonging it
3) In terms of meaningful negotiations, I doubt if our EU friends would really engage until we invoked Article 50.
4) Leave it too late and we risk not having it settled with enough time before the GE.0 -
I'm sure he was furnished with all the relevant advice before he made his decision.Plato_Says said:How a law firm manages to still convince clients this is anything other than idiotic action is beyond me.
Tissue_Price said:
The £1m is seemingly no sacrifice at all.Sandpit said:
He's been told he's got to pay both sides' costs if today's ruling goes against him. Estimated at a million quid, to protect the names that everyone knows already. He obviously has more money than sense.Pulpstar said:PJS must be a law firm's wet dream.
0 -
Yes, I saw that. I'd like the context and subtext of that whole Q&A please.AlastairMeeks said:
hCasino_Royale said:
Yes, it's a prospectus of what the UK wants.AlastairMeeks said:
It is a prospectus. It is also profoundly infantile, suggesting that there is nothing that need be compromised on at any point because all of it can be delivered cost-free (oh, and by the way, we don't just want to leave, we want to see the whole damn thing collapse).Casino_Royale said:So after attacking Vote Leave for months on not having a clear plan for Brexit, Remainers and the "undecided" are now immediately switching to attacking the substance of the plan.
Disappointing, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I predicted as much in February.
It's as though the Scottish independence campaign had been led by Dair.
I went through the Vote Leave case on Sunday. I mentioned what we'd want and what the EU would want, and where we might need to negotiate to reach a deal.
I thought it was very good.
Do you have the details behind 'seeing the whole EU collapse'?
I don't trust it to be as billed.0 -
Ok, well at least that's honest; thanks for clearing that up.Richard_Nabavi said:
Preparing a coherent alternative requires a lot of work, as well as an honest and careful assesment of what's politically possible. The Leave side are still trying to have their cake and eat it, as well as waving away legitimate concerns and (most tellingly for me) impugning the independence of every serious commentator or institution who raise legitimate concerns about the economic or political realities.Casino_Royale said:Yes. In one full swoop you've gone from saying it's incoherent to saying it's incredible.
I think the only way you'd be convinced is if it was pre-negotiated, on the table, with a wet ink signature from all EU members and parties, and ready to endorse in a referendum. In which case, of course, the PM would be recommending Leave and everyone would know and be expecting we'd Leave.
You must have known that was never going to happen.
So what am I missing?
Was it ever going to be possible to persuade me to vote Leave? In retrospect, now that I know a lot more about the issues than I did at the start of the discussions of the various options, probably not; there doesn't seem to be an alternative which actually works better than the status quo. However, that doesn't mean my mind was made up in advance, it wasn't. I made up my mind fairly definitively around the end of 2015.
I can see a much brighter future outside, others can't. I'm satisfied of the independent research I've seen supports that.
I guess that's what it all comes down to.0 -
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
0 -
How to win friends and influence negotiating partners...
@AndrewSparrow: Gove implies he would like Brexit to lead to collapse of entire EU - https://t.co/5mPKHJ7kRm0 -
The last sentence of your post laughable,come to my area of Bradford of recent arrivals from the EU,soon prove you wrong and how out of touch you are on this.AlastairMeeks said:@megalomaniacs4u Britain's recent immigrants are twice as likely as the native-born to have completed education aged 21 or over. The idea that Britain is getting low grade immigrants is simply untrue.
0
