Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
-
I assume that is why Vote Leave chose to reject the option. I think this was a huge mistake as it would have made the economic arguments so much easier but they have obviously calculated a la Mr Meeks that Immigration is where its at.Bob__Sykes said:On the EFTA website: "The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation covering the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — throughout the 31 EEA States"
"Free movement of persons" if we leave the EU and join EFTA?
Albanians coming here, taking our jobs, filling our hospitals, clogging our roads.....?
Hm.
Of course, your average Sun reader or disgruntled white working class Labour voter isn't going to look at the EFTA website before 23rd June....0 -
But some people might, and find that it would be possible to place limits on immigration for social and security reasons:Bob__Sykes said:On the EFTA website: "The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation covering the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — throughout the 31 EEA States"
"Free movement of persons" if we leave the EU and join EFTA?
Albanians coming here, taking our jobs, filling our hospitals, clogging our roads.....?
Hm.
Of course, your average Sun reader or disgruntled white working class Labour voter isn't going to look at the EFTA website before 23rd June....
"Membership of the European Economic Area Agreement outside the EU includes the principle of free movement of labour but does allow EEA states in practice to place restrictions on immigration from EU states.
"It is possible to impose restrictions on immigration (from EU and other EEA countries) whilst remaining in the EEA. Liechtenstein, an EEA member with less potential influence than Britain, continues to use clauses in the EEA agreement to restrict the movement of persons. Article 112(1) of the EEA Agreement reads “If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113” The restrictions used by Liechtenstein are further reinforced by Protocol 15 (Article 5-7) of the EEA Agreement. This allows Liechtenstein to keep specific restrictions on the free movement of people. These have been kept in place by what is known as the EEA Council (1) ."0 -
Should google BEFORE posting. Here's the question:FF43 said:
Hmm. Was the question asked that way? It surprises me that 52% have heard of EFTA.
Q. The European Economic Area (EEA) is the single market that allows for free movement of goods, services, people and capital between all participating European countries. There are two organisations which allow countries to access this EEA single market - the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Members of the EFTA adopt some of the regulations that the EU passes in order to be able to access the EEA single market and contribute to the EU’s budget but are not bound by EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, home affairs or justice policies. EFTA members are also able to negotiate trade agreements with outside countries whereas the EU does this for its member states. In return, EFTA members have much more limited influence over how EU rules are made.If the UK left the European Union, it could become a member of the EFTA instead. Supporters of this move say that the UK would have to adopt fewer European regulations and pay less into the EU budget than it does now while still being able to help shape the rules. Opponents say that the UK would still have to abide by EU rules to be part of the EEA single market but would have no say in making those rules.
With this in mind, which would you prefer the UK to be a member of?
A. EEA & EU (European Economic Area and European Union)
B. EEA & EFTA (European Economic Area and European Free Trade Association)
To which most respondents probably go "Eeeh? Could you repeat the question. No don't bother. Make it B"
A surprisingly low 39% of Don't Know.
0 -
I don't know whether the 80% figure is right or not, it seems high to me but let's put that to one side.Richard_Tyndall said:
There are lots of other reasons for being in favour of EFTA/EEA membership but since you seem to have trouble with even the simple bits it is probably best not to go into those at the moment.
Even on the vision you articulate, the reality is that the EU will continue to exist and the 28 states within it will continue to make rules for whatever proportion of regs you say don't any longer apply to us. And unlike now, we will have no say whatsoever on any of that.
We will still visit the EU. We will sell our goods there. We will buy our goods from there. Anyone suggesting this 80%, 70%, 60% whatever number of regs will be irrelevant to us post-Brexit is living in cloud cuckoo land. British companies will continue to comply because of the hassle of having EU standards and UK standards. The UK would probably adopt most EU regs because it's easier, and many of them are probably sensible anyway (or fulfil international Treaty obligations).
I really don't see Brexit giving us any "escape" from the EU as long as it continues to exist right on our doorstep. All it would do is deny us any voice of sanity or role in the continued regulations emanating from Brussels and still affecting us.0 -
'being saddled with the full panoply of EU law by virtue of EEA/EFTA membership and not having any say on it anymore'
Have you ever considered actually ascertaining the facts for yourself, Bob?0 -
Even as a Leaver, I'd say that question (pay less, adopt fewer EU regulations) is somewhat biased towards option B.FF43 said:
Should google BEFORE posting. Here's the question:FF43 said:
Hmm. Was the question asked that way? It surprises me that 52% have heard of EFTA.
Q. The European Economic Area (EEA) is the single market that allows for free movement of goods, services, people and capital between all participating European countries. There are two organisations which allow countries to access this EEA single market - the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Members of the EFTA adopt some of the regulations that the EU passes in order to be able to access the EEA single market and contribute to the EU’s budget but are not bound by EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, home affairs or justice policies. EFTA members are also able to negotiate trade agreements with outside countries whereas the EU does this for its member states. In return, EFTA members have much more limited influence over how EU rules are made.If the UK left the European Union, it could become a member of the EFTA instead. Supporters of this move say that the UK would have to adopt fewer European regulations and pay less into the EU budget than it does now while still being able to help shape the rules. Opponents say that the UK would still have to abide by EU rules to be part of the EEA single market but would have no say in making those rules.
With this in mind, which would you prefer the UK to be a member of?
A. EEA & EU (European Economic Area and European Union)
B. EEA & EFTA (European Economic Area and European Free Trade Association)
To which most respondents probably go "Eeeh? Could you repeat the question. No don't bother. Make it B"
A surprisingly low 39% of Don't Know.0 -
Where do all these standards come from? I presume you are of the opinion that the EU is the ultimate top table.Bob__Sykes said:
I don't know whether the 80% figure is right or not, it seems high to me but let's put that to one side.Richard_Tyndall said:
There are lots of other reasons for being in favour of EFTA/EEA membership but since you seem to have trouble with even the simple bits it is probably best not to go into those at the moment.
Even on the vision you articulate, the reality is that the EU will continue to exist and the 28 states within it will continue to make rules for whatever proportion of regs you say don't any longer apply to us. And unlike now, we will have no say whatsoever on any of that.
We will still visit the EU. We will sell our goods there. We will buy our goods from there. Anyone suggesting this 80%, 70%, 60% whatever number of regs will be irrelevant to us post-Brexit is living in cloud cuckoo land. British companies will continue to comply because of the hassle of having EU standards and UK standards. The UK would probably adopt most EU regs because it's easier, and many of them are probably sensible anyway (or fulfil international Treaty obligations).
I really don't see Brexit giving us any "escape" from the EU as long as it continues to exist right on our doorstep. All it would do is deny us any voice of sanity or role in the continued regulations emanating from Brussels and still affecting us.0 -
Those 80% have mothing to do with trade or the single market. I wonder perhaps if you fail to understand just how much of our lives unrelated to trade is controlled by EU regulation.Bob__Sykes said:
I don't know whether the 80% figure is right or not, it seems high to me but let's put that to one side.Richard_Tyndall said:
There are lots of other reasons for being in favour of EFTA/EEA membership but since you seem to have trouble with even the simple bits it is probably best not to go into those at the moment.
Even on the vision you articulate, the reality is that the EU will continue to exist and the 28 states within it will continue to make rules for whatever proportion of regs you say don't any longer apply to us. And unlike now, we will have no say whatsoever on any of that.
We will still visit the EU. We will sell our goods there. We will buy our goods from there. Anyone suggesting this 80%, 70%, 60% whatever number of regs will be irrelevant to us post-Brexit is living in cloud cuckoo land. British companies will continue to comply because of the hassle of having EU standards and UK standards. The UK would probably adopt most EU regs because it's easier, and many of them are probably sensible anyway (or fulfil international Treaty obligations).
I really don't see Brexit giving us any "escape" from the EU as long as it continues to exist right on our doorstep. All it would do is deny us any voice of sanity or role in the continued regulations emanating from Brussels and still affecting us.
The rules covering the single market will continue to apply to EEA countries and they will continue to have input into their formulation. The myth that they are simply imposed with no EFTA involvement is long since disproved.
Moreover many of those rules on trade are no longer made by the EU. They are made by bodies above the EU where we do not have a seat because we have ceded it to the EU. As such leaving the EU and regaining seat and a vote on those bodies would give us more control over those rules.
You should stop believing the Remainder myths and start looking at the facts.0 -
Dear god.Richard_Tyndall said:
I can't insult your intelligence because you have shown you don't have any.TOPPING said:
Richard bases his argument, when he is not insulting your intelligence, upon what he wishes were the case rather than what is the case.FF43 said:
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.Richard_Tyndall said:
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.FF43 said:
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wantede the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway"
Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
Small children in Hexham would agree that the proposition: let's leave the EU and then join it again (for all the world what the EEA option looks like)...ain't a flyer.
I base my argument on a couple of simple principles which a number of others including Robert Smithson agree with.
The first is that I am not concerned about EU migration. Now clearly this is a problem for many which is why they do not like the EEA option. But for me it is not an issue.
The second is that EFTA/EEA membership would mean a net contribution of around £2billion a year based on our GDP. This compares with a net contribution of between £8.5 billion and £10billion currently and a gross contribution of around £15-£16 billion. SO there is a huge saving in money.
In addition we would no longer be subject to the (very large) majority of EU rule and regulations. Somewhere around 80% of EU regulation would no longer apply.
There are lots of other reasons for being in favour of EFTA/EEA membership but since you seem to have trouble with even the simple bits it is probably best not to go into those at the moment.
You are rehearsing the arguments for EFTA/EEA or EFTA. Can you be any denser?
It is irrelevant the merits or otherwise of those options.
What we are discussing, which I appreciate is a stretch for you to understand, is selling the "let's leave the EU and then join the EU" position. As many on here have noted, and it really is not difficult to grasp, except for you, is that it will not wash for most Leavers.
You, and Robert, and I believe @MaxPB, are the exception generally.0 -
75% thought EFTA was EFing Tory ArseholesFF43 said:
Hmm. Was the question asked that way? It surprises me that 52% have heard of EFTA.MP_SE said:
Those who participated in the below poll seem to prefer EFTA+EEA to membership of the EU:TOPPING said:
Richard bases his argument, when he is not insulting your intelligence, upon what he wishes were the case rather than what is the case.FF43 said:
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.Richard_Tyndall said:
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.FF43 said:
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway"
Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
Small children in Hexham would agree that the proposition: let's leave the EU and then join it again (for all the world what the EEA option looks like)...ain't a flyer.
https://twitter.com/minefornothing/status/714041298622160896
32% of LEAVE voters thought it was Enormo Farage Todger Appreciation
174% of 694% of REMAIN supporters were certain it was the PM's maiden aunts milkman's whippet
6,000,000 Jewish supporters of Naz Shah believed it to be the name of the ship taking them to the US via resettlement in Poland.0 -
The lets Leave the EU and join the EU position is not being articulated by anyone on the Leave side. It is another straw man created by people like you to confuse the issue. I assume you do so because you have no answer to the basic EFTA position.TOPPING said:Dear god.
You are rehearsing the arguments for EFTA/EEA or EFTA. Can you be any denser?
It is irrelevant the merits or otherwise of those options.
What we are discussing, which I appreciate is a stretch for you to understand, is selling the "let's leave the EU and then join the EU" position. As many on here have noted, and it really is not difficult to grasp, except for you, is that it will not wash for most Leavers.
You, and Robert, and I believe @MaxPB, are the exception generally.0 -
All this might be true, but three quarters of voters turned over to Strictly Come Dancing before the end of your first sentence. It has to be short, punchy and easy to explain or it is going to get no traction in the face of government's bullshit information. "Take Control" sounds cheesy to political geeks like us, but its a simple unambiguous, easy to sell message that the can repeat enough times until there is cut through.Richard_Tyndall said:
I can't insult your intelligence because you have shown you don't have any.TOPPING said:
Richard bases his argument, when he is not insulting your intelligence, upon what he wishes were the case rather than what is the case.FF43 said:
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.Richard_Tyndall said:
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.FF43 said:
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway"
Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
Small children in Hexham would agree that the proposition: let's leave the EU and then join it again (for all the world what the EEA option looks like)...ain't a flyer.
I base my argument on a couple of simple principles which a number of others including Robert Smithson agree with.
The first is that I am not concerned about EU migration. Now clearly this is a problem for many which is why they do not like the EEA option. But for me it is not an issue.
The second is that EFTA/EEA membership would mean a net contribution of around £2billion a year based on our GDP. This compares with a net contribution of between £8.5 billion and £10billion currently and a gross contribution of around £15-£16 billion. SO there is a huge saving in money.
In addition we would no longer be subject to the (very large) majority of EU rule and regulations. Somewhere around 80% of EU regulation would no longer apply.
There are lots of other reasons for being in favour of EFTA/EEA membership but since you seem to have trouble with even the simple bits it is probably best not to go into those at the moment.0 -
As an expert in divination she should have seen that coming.Plato_Says said:Give this man a BAFTA
"An irate farmer today sprayed raw sewage at Oscar winning star Emma Thompson." https://t.co/y36JYsrGlU
0 -
There are plenty of economic benefits from Brexit which are being overlooked. We would not be banned from certain economic activities for either our home market or non-EU export markets. For example, the new REACH regulations will ban the production and use of many of the most effective disinfectants in hospitals and laboratories, setting back infection control decades. Another example relates to GMOs and synthetic biology, where EU Directive 2001;18 is preventing us from being a competitive part of the next economic revolution.Bob__Sykes said:
I don't know whether the 80% figure is right or not, it seems high to me but let's put that to one side.Richard_Tyndall said:
There are lots of other reasons for being in favour of EFTA/EEA membership but since you seem to have trouble with even the simple bits it is probably best not to go into those at the moment.
Even on the vision you articulate, the reality is that the EU will continue to exist and the 28 states within it will continue to make rules for whatever proportion of regs you say don't any longer apply to us. And unlike now, we will have no say whatsoever on any of that.
We will still visit the EU. We will sell our goods there. We will buy our goods from there. Anyone suggesting this 80%, 70%, 60% whatever number of regs will be irrelevant to us post-Brexit is living in cloud cuckoo land. British companies will continue to comply because of the hassle of having EU standards and UK standards. The UK would probably adopt most EU regs because it's easier, and many of them are probably sensible anyway (or fulfil international Treaty obligations).
I really don't see Brexit giving us any "escape" from the EU as long as it continues to exist right on our doorstep. All it would do is deny us any voice of sanity or role in the continued regulations emanating from Brussels and still affecting us.
Brexit would allow us to protect the environment and our health while better exploiting new technologies such as synbio. The problem with many EU regulations is that they are so broad in application that not all stakeholders can participate in their formulation and, once a bad regulation is in place, it is almost impossible to amend or retract.0 -
Small French question, when referring to a French king, would it be simply Roi Philippe (assuming he's called Philippe, obviously)?0
-
Is all this verbiage supposed to be telling us anything.Bob__Sykes said:Of course, your average Sun reader or disgruntled white working class Labour voter isn't going to look at the EFTA website before 23rd June....
1) VTLC has gone for all the way out, a debate can and is being held about if this is the right solution, but its rather beside the point, its what they have said and they are unlikely to change it.
2) Wibbling about WWC voter reading about EFTA is irrelevant, as far as the referendum is concerned, its not on the table, VLTC are not talking about it and neither is BSE.
3) VLTC will not be the government of the UK after the referendum, the Conservative Party will, so what they plan to do is what actually matters, although good luck with getting them to tell you.
0 -
So, less, but better EU? Could work. It's not what the exit campaigns are pushing, though. It also shares the lack of inspiration of the pro-EU campaign. It raises the question, why bother with it?Richard_Tyndall said:<
I base my argument on a couple of simple principles which a number of others including Robert Smithson agree with.
The first is that I am not concerned about EU migration. Now clearly this is a problem for many which is why they do not like the EEA option. But for me it is not an issue.
The second is that EFTA/EEA membership would mean a net contribution of around £2billion a year based on our GDP. This compares with a net contribution of between £8.5 billion and £10billion currently and a gross contribution of around £15-£16 billion. SO there is a huge saving in money.
In addition we would no longer be subject to the (very large) majority of EU rule and regulations. Somewhere around 80% of EU regulation would no longer apply.
0 -
The basic EFTA position which saw Switzerland suspended from eg Horizon2020 because they voted against FMOP?Richard_Tyndall said:
The lets Leave the EU and join the EU position is not being articulated by anyone on the Leave side. It is another straw man created by people like you to confuse the issue. I assume you do so because you have no answer to the basic EFTA position.TOPPING said:Dear god.
You are rehearsing the arguments for EFTA/EEA or EFTA. Can you be any denser?
It is irrelevant the merits or otherwise of those options.
What we are discussing, which I appreciate is a stretch for you to understand, is selling the "let's leave the EU and then join the EU" position. As many on here have noted, and it really is not difficult to grasp, except for you, is that it will not wash for most Leavers.
You, and Robert, and I believe @MaxPB, are the exception generally.
0 -
The formal title seems to depend on the period. Roi de France, Roi des Francais seem to be up there. But in referring to the king, it seems Louis XIV suffices, not King Louis XIV.Morris_Dancer said:Small French question, when referring to a French king, would it be simply Roi Philippe (assuming he's called Philippe, obviously)?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_monarques_de_France0 -
Mr. T, it's fantasyland, for which I have shamelessly stolen the French language. However, that's still a very useful answer either way, cheers. (Only a single line rather than a recurring matter). Thanks 0
-
"Take Control" is indeed simple and unambiguous.Indigo said:
All this might be true, but three quarters of voters turned over to Strictly Come Dancing before the end of your first sentence. It has to be short, punchy and easy to explain or it is going to get no traction in the face of government's bullshit information. "Take Control" sounds cheesy to political geeks like us, but its a simple unambiguous, easy to sell message that the can repeat enough times until there is cut through.Richard_Tyndall said:
I can't....TOPPING said:
Richard bases his argument, when he is not insulting your intelligence, upon what he wishes were the case rather than what is the case.FF43 said:
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.Richard_Tyndall said:
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.FF43 said:
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway"
Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
Small children in Hexham would agree that the proposition: let's leave the EU and then join it again (for all the world what the EEA option looks like)...ain't a flyer.
The second is that EFTA/EEA membership would mean a net contribution of around £2billion a year based on our GDP. This compares with a net contribution of between £8.5 billion and £10billion currently and a gross contribution of around £15-£16 billion. SO there is a huge saving in money.
In addition we would no longer be subject to the (very large) majority of EU rule and regulations. Somewhere around 80% of EU regulation would no longer apply.
There are lots of other reasons for being in favour of EFTA/EEA membership but since you seem to have trouble with even the simple bits it is probably best not to go into those at the moment.
Unfortunately it also seems to be a lie....0 -
Deleted0
-
I agree to some extent. As I said the huge flaw in my argument is that it is not being promoted by the Leave campaign. In effect the position held by myself and some others on here has already lost whatever the outcome.FF43 said:
So, less, but better EU? Could work. It's not what the exit campaigns are pushing, though. It also shares the lack of inspiration of the pro-EU campaign. It raises the question, why bother with it?Richard_Tyndall said:<
I base my argument on a couple of simple principles which a number of others including Robert Smithson agree with.
The first is that I am not concerned about EU migration. Now clearly this is a problem for many which is why they do not like the EEA option. But for me it is not an issue.
The second is that EFTA/EEA membership would mean a net contribution of around £2billion a year based on our GDP. This compares with a net contribution of between £8.5 billion and £10billion currently and a gross contribution of around £15-£16 billion. SO there is a huge saving in money.
In addition we would no longer be subject to the (very large) majority of EU rule and regulations. Somewhere around 80% of EU regulation would no longer apply.
However that does nothing to change the basic value of the position as long as EU migration is not a concern for you. What we gain in lack of EU regulation, regaining a voice on the bodies that actually make the decisions and far lower contributions is huge.0 -
-
Businesses and libertarians like it because its four freedoms, minimal cost and minimal interference from Brussels. In many ways it has a lot going for it, but it fails as a sales proposition in my view.FF43 said:
So, less, but better EU? Could work. It's not what the exit campaigns are pushing, though. It also shares the lack of inspiration of the pro-EU campaign. It raises the question, why bother with it?Richard_Tyndall said:<
I base my argument on a couple of simple principles which a number of others including Robert Smithson agree with.
The first is that I am not concerned about EU migration. Now clearly this is a problem for many which is why they do not like the EEA option. But for me it is not an issue.
The second is that EFTA/EEA membership would mean a net contribution of around £2billion a year based on our GDP. This compares with a net contribution of between £8.5 billion and £10billion currently and a gross contribution of around £15-£16 billion. SO there is a huge saving in money.
In addition we would no longer be subject to the (very large) majority of EU rule and regulations. Somewhere around 80% of EU regulation would no longer apply.
First its too complicated, its sounds like the EU, it still has open borders and quite a lot of interference although no where near as much, and if are you explaining, you are losing.
Second and probably critically, it does nothing for people concerned about immigration, which is a fair percent of lever voters, if they don't get they they might well decided it isnt worth the risk and switch to Remain. If 72% if voters want immigration reduces, 56% by a lot, that probably drives a lot of your vote who otherwise don't care about the rest of it.
0 -
@TOPPING
What you're failing to see is that your vote is already in the bag - we don't have to convince you to vote to leave on June 23rd. Even if the option was openly EFTA/EEA, it's unlikely that anyone already convinced to leave the EU would not take the opportunity to get at least that far.
So, for those in the middle, EEA offers security of single market - i.e. no economic reason not to leave - and only 25% max of the EU law is EEA applicable.
Also, the simple fact is that most of the regulations for trade are being implemented by the EU, but being written at a much more global level - GSM, Codex, UNECE, ISO etc. This is because the WTO's treaty on Technical Barriers to Trade makes it an obligation to take on board the most globally recognised standard in local regulation. The EU signed up to it.
0 -
Since my argument all along has been for EEA membership via EFTA that is another straw man argument.TOPPING said:
The basic EFTA position which saw Switzerland suspended from eg Horizon2020 because they voted against FMOP?Richard_Tyndall said:
The lets Leave the EU and join the EU position is not being articulated by anyone on the Leave side. It is another straw man created by people like you to confuse the issue. I assume you do so because you have no answer to the basic EFTA position.TOPPING said:Dear god.
You are rehearsing the arguments for EFTA/EEA or EFTA. Can you be any denser?
It is irrelevant the merits or otherwise of those options.
What we are discussing, which I appreciate is a stretch for you to understand, is selling the "let's leave the EU and then join the EU" position. As many on here have noted, and it really is not difficult to grasp, except for you, is that it will not wash for most Leavers.
You, and Robert, and I believe @MaxPB, are the exception generally.0 -
I think the big flaw is not that migration is not a concern to you, so much as it is a concern to a lot of Leave voters, who might well decide that without control of our borders all the other risks the government is highlighting are not worth it. At which point we are remaining.Richard_Tyndall said:However that does nothing to change the basic value of the position as long as EU migration is not a concern for you.
0 -
Anyway, must be off (my eyes are starting to go fuzzy).
Thanks again, Mr. T.0 -
Scandalous.Plato_Says said:
Firstly that they are doing it, secondly that they are cutting a deal with trades unions and hve the nerve to call themselves Tories, and perhaps the most scandalous of the lot that they are doing it for so little. £1.7m isn't even a decent mailshot.0 -
I honestly hope I am wrong but I believe we are more likely now to lose because the EEA option has been removed. As TonyE says we already had a large part of the vote in the bag. Those who were long term anti-EU. What we need is the ones who don't like the EU but are frightened for their economic future. Now personally I believe that our economic future is bright whether we are in EFTA or completely out. But it would have been far easier to convince voters with the EFTA argument.Indigo said:
I think the big flaw is not that migration is not a concern to you, so much as it is a concern to a lot of Leave voters, who might well decide that without control of our borders all the other risks the government is highlighting are not worth it. At which point we are remaining.Richard_Tyndall said:However that does nothing to change the basic value of the position as long as EU migration is not a concern for you.
0 -
Remember though that the EU Treaty is not the same as the EEA treaty, which takes those freedoms at their 1992 point - the moment at which that treaty was signed.Indigo said:
I think the big flaw is not that migration is not a concern to you, so much as it is a concern to a lot of Leave voters, who might well decide that without control of our borders all the other risks the government is highlighting are not worth it. At which point we are remaining.Richard_Tyndall said:However that does nothing to change the basic value of the position as long as EU migration is not a concern for you.
Articles 112/113 create a unilateral emergency brake on the four freedoms and other measures - Iceland has used this provision and one other in the treaty to suspend the free movement of capital. And of course, there is no recourse to the EU commission, and the commission cannot veto it.0 -
I hope he makes the new year's honours list.Plato_Says said:Give this man a BAFTA
"An irate farmer today sprayed raw sewage at Oscar winning star Emma Thompson." https://t.co/y36JYsrGlU0 -
I get all that, EEA/EFTA is an EU-lite. For me it is sub-optimal but that's by the by.TonyE said:@TOPPING
What you're failing to see is that your vote is already in the bag - we don't have to convince you to vote to leave on June 23rd. Even if the option was openly EFTA/EEA, it's unlikely that anyone already convinced to leave the EU would not take the opportunity to get at least that far.
So, for those in the middle, EEA offers security of single market - i.e. no economic reason not to leave - and only 25% max of the EU law is EEA applicable.
Also, the simple fact is that most of the regulations for trade are being implemented by the EU, but being written at a much more global level - GSM, Codex, UNECE, ISO etc. This is because the WTO's treaty on Technical Barriers to Trade makes it an obligation to take on board the most globally recognised standard in local regulation. The EU signed up to it.
Thing is, a) it is not on the table, and b) as has been pointed out on here, it would be a very tricky sell if it were.0 -
North Carolina - PPP
Clinton 44 .. Trump 44
Clinton 45 .. Cruz 40
Clinton 39 .. Kasich 46
Sanders 46 .. Trump 43
Sanders 46 .. Cruz 38
Sanders 41 .. Kasich 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_42716.pdf0 -
They are desperate.Plato_Says said:0 -
The UK has been one of the main beneficiaries from free movement of labour in the EU.This should be the response of Remain,not pandering to unsubstantiated xenophobia.Even the Leavers in their villas in the Costas should understand that.Remain need to take the battle on free movement head on without compromise.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/07/01/the-uk-has-been-one-of-the-main-beneficiaries-from-free-movement-of-labour-in-the-eu/
0 -
If true, Cameron is finished regardless of whether we remain or leave.Plato_Says said:0 -
Roy Jenkins was known as Roi Jean Quinze in Brussels.Morris_Dancer said:Small French question, when referring to a French king, would it be simply Roi Philippe (assuming he's called Philippe, obviously)?
0 -
You either go:Richard_Tyndall said:
Since my argument all along has been for EEA membership via EFTA that is another straw man argument.TOPPING said:
The basic EFTA position which saw Switzerland suspended from eg Horizon2020 because they voted against FMOP?Richard_Tyndall said:
The lets Leave the EU and join the EU position is not being articulated by anyone on the Leave side. It is another straw man created by people like you to confuse the issue. I assume you do so because you have no answer to the basic EFTA position.TOPPING said:Dear god.
You are rehearsing the arguments for EFTA/EEA or EFTA. Can you be any denser?
It is irrelevant the merits or otherwise of those options.
What we are discussing, which I appreciate is a stretch for you to understand, is selling the "let's leave the EU and then join the EU" position. As many on here have noted, and it really is not difficult to grasp, except for you, is that it will not wash for most Leavers.
You, and Robert, and I believe @MaxPB, are the exception generally.
1) EFTA and EEA = FMOP; or
2) EFTA and no EEA = FMOP unless you don't want FMOP in which case you suffer (eg Horizon2020 and the Swiss).
1) means FMOP and that is what we are discussing is a hard sell.
It's like talking to a Strawberry Mivi discussing this with you, Richard.
0 -
I think the bulk of the "anti-EU" vote is really a "control our borders" vote, some will be anti-immigration period, many will be more nuanced and just want flow controlled to a rate we can assimilate or restrict immigration to productive, useful people prepared to integrate, others still are just pissed off about the whole Article 8 charade preventing us from kicking out asylum seekers that have failed their appeals, and various sorts of criminals.Richard_Tyndall said:I honestly hope I am wrong but I believe we are more likely now to lose because the EEA option has been removed. As TonyE says we already had a large part of the vote in the bag. Those who were long term anti-EU. What we need is the ones who don't like the EU but are frightened for their economic future. Now personally I believe that our economic future is bright whether we are in EFTA or completely out. But it would have been far easier to convince voters with the EFTA argument.
None of the above people will be interested in an EEA/EFTA solution, they will see all the governments propaganda about the increased risk whilst not them the payoff they want, so the will vote remain. With the polling being as tight as it is, losing even a couple of million voters like this is a guaranteed Remain, at which point the debate about what sort of Leave we have becomes pointless.
0 -
So. completing the circle, Leave retain the advantage of a simple message as well as the disadvantage of no coherent and credible alternative to EU membership. The campaigns seem to be operating in that space.TOPPING said:
I get all that, EEA/EFTA is an EU-lite. For me it is sub-optimal but that's by the by.TonyE said:@TOPPING
What you're failing to see is that your vote is already in the bag - we don't have to convince you to vote to leave on June 23rd. Even if the option was openly EFTA/EEA, it's unlikely that anyone already convinced to leave the EU would not take the opportunity to get at least that far.
So, for those in the middle, EEA offers security of single market - i.e. no economic reason not to leave - and only 25% max of the EU law is EEA applicable.
Also, the simple fact is that most of the regulations for trade are being implemented by the EU, but being written at a much more global level - GSM, Codex, UNECE, ISO etc. This is because the WTO's treaty on Technical Barriers to Trade makes it an obligation to take on board the most globally recognised standard in local regulation. The EU signed up to it.
Thing is, a) it is not on the table, and b) as has been pointed out on here, it would be a very tricky sell if it were.0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/27/naz-shah-labour-anti-semitism-and-a-piece-of-spin-that-will-make/
Bloody hell - I thought someone was having a laugh.
A Labour spokesperson did actually say "“We’re not suggesting she’s anti-Semitic,” said the spokesman. “We’re saying she’s made remarks that she doesn’t agree with.”
Stunning, just stunning
0 -
It will lose if it does that. No one is listening.volcanopete said:The UK has been one of the main beneficiaries from free movement of labour in the EU.This should be the response of Remain,not pandering to unsubstantiated xenophobia.Even the Leavers in their villas in the Costas should understand that.Remain need to take the battle on free movement head on without compromise.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/07/01/the-uk-has-been-one-of-the-main-beneficiaries-from-free-movement-of-labour-in-the-eu/
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/38108/immigration-bsa31.pdfImmigration to Britain should…
be increased a lot - 2%
be increased a little - 2%
remain the same as it is - 17%
be reduced a little - 21%
be reduced a lot - 56%0 -
Don't they believe the polls then? < innocent face>Casino_Royale said:
They are desperate.Plato_Says said:0 -
The most disappointed people in Britain today? Hunt's spin doctors who, despite their zeal, and their master's scaremongering, have been unable to find a death to pin on the junior doctors' strike.0
-
Ultimately if you can't sell it, it doesn't matter what else there is.FF43 said:
So. completing the circle, Leave retain the advantage of a simple message as well as the disadvantage of no coherent and credible alternative to EU membership. The campaigns seem to be operating in that space.TOPPING said:
I get all that, EEA/EFTA is an EU-lite. For me it is sub-optimal but that's by the by.TonyE said:@TOPPING
What you're failing to see is that your vote is already in the bag - we don't have to convince you to vote to leave on June 23rd. Even if the option was openly EFTA/EEA, it's unlikely that anyone already convinced to leave the EU would not take the opportunity to get at least that far.
So, for those in the middle, EEA offers security of single market - i.e. no economic reason not to leave - and only 25% max of the EU law is EEA applicable.
Also, the simple fact is that most of the regulations for trade are being implemented by the EU, but being written at a much more global level - GSM, Codex, UNECE, ISO etc. This is because the WTO's treaty on Technical Barriers to Trade makes it an obligation to take on board the most globally recognised standard in local regulation. The EU signed up to it.
Thing is, a) it is not on the table, and b) as has been pointed out on here, it would be a very tricky sell if it were.0 -
Yes!FF43 said:
So. completing the circle, Leave retain the advantage of a simple message as well as the disadvantage of no coherent and credible alternative to EU membership. The campaigns seem to be operating in that space.TOPPING said:
I get all that, EEA/EFTA is an EU-lite. For me it is sub-optimal but that's by the by.TonyE said:@TOPPING
What you're failing to see is that your vote is already in the bag - we don't have to convince you to vote to leave on June 23rd. Even if the option was openly EFTA/EEA, it's unlikely that anyone already convinced to leave the EU would not take the opportunity to get at least that far.
So, for those in the middle, EEA offers security of single market - i.e. no economic reason not to leave - and only 25% max of the EU law is EEA applicable.
Also, the simple fact is that most of the regulations for trade are being implemented by the EU, but being written at a much more global level - GSM, Codex, UNECE, ISO etc. This is because the WTO's treaty on Technical Barriers to Trade makes it an obligation to take on board the most globally recognised standard in local regulation. The EU signed up to it.
Thing is, a) it is not on the table, and b) as has been pointed out on here, it would be a very tricky sell if it were.
If you cast your mind back to your first, astute post on the subject, I agreed then and I agree now and then everyone jumped in answering a different question.0 -
Thus far, the Shah word has occurred 75 times on this thread. Sorry, make that 76.0
-
Chris A..could they find any distressed and in pain patients..if not then why do we pay doctors so much money..nobody dies and no one is in pain or distressed when they are on strike..0
-
They had already decided that if anyone died it wasn't their fault.richardDodd said:Chris A..could they find any distressed and in pain patients..if not then why do we pay doctors so much money..nobody dies and no one is in pain or distressed when they are on strike..
"Save our NHS" my arse0 -
Ding Ding
Another one falls out of the woodwork
http://order-order.com/2016/04/27/bradford-councillor-posted-goebbels-nazi-video-the-eternal-jew/0 -
An MP being suspended is pretty big news in these partsLewisDuckworth said:Thus far, the Shah word has occurred 75 times on this thread. Sorry, make that 76.
0 -
"The UK has been one of the main beneficiaries from free movement of labour in the EU.This should be the response of Remain" My mother's carers have had a pay cut to bring them down to the minimum wage. Is that OK?0
-
Since in my very first post on this this evening I said I was in favour of freedom of movement it strikes me it is you who have a brain like a jelly.TOPPING said:
You either go:Richard_Tyndall said:
Since my argument all along has been for EEA membership via EFTA that is another straw man argument.TOPPING said:
The basic EFTA position which saw Switzerland suspended from eg Horizon2020 because they voted against FMOP?Richard_Tyndall said:
The lets Leave the EU and join the EU position is not being articulated by anyone on the Leave side. It is another straw man created by people like you to confuse the issue. I assume you do so because you have no answer to the basic EFTA position.TOPPING said:Dear god.
You are rehearsing the arguments for EFTA/EEA or EFTA. Can you be any denser?
It is irrelevant the merits or otherwise of those options.
What we are discussing, which I appreciate is a stretch for you to understand, is selling the "let's leave the EU and then join the EU" position. As many on here have noted, and it really is not difficult to grasp, except for you, is that it will not wash for most Leavers.
You, and Robert, and I believe @MaxPB, are the exception generally.
1) EFTA and EEA = FMOP; or
2) EFTA and no EEA = FMOP unless you don't want FMOP in which case you suffer (eg Horizon2020 and the Swiss).
1) means FMOP and that is what we are discussing is a hard sell.
It's like talking to a Strawberry Mivi discussing this with you, Richard.0 -
I'm not sure that doing no work and it having no effect on the service is the way to prove your essential value.Chris_A said:The most disappointed people in Britain today? Hunt's spin doctors who, despite their zeal, and their master's scaremongering, have been unable to find a death to pin on the junior doctors' strike.
0 -
The EU who pretended in a Press Release 10 years ago that most attacks on Jews were perpetrated by the Far Right ... you'd have to be Stark Raving to believe that's good for REmain.Stark_Dawning said:The Naz Shah thing can only be good for Remain. The very word 'anti-Semitism' summons up one thing: a bloke with a silly moustache stomping around Europe raising hell. Like it or loathe it, the plodding EU with its mundane rules, its trivial preoccupations and its political correctness is in absolute contrast to the horrors that preceded its existence. Shah has given us a glimpse of humanity's dark past. Reminded of that, people will opt to stick with what's familiar and boring.
0 -
“We’re not suggesting she’s anti-Semitic,” said the spokesman. “We’re saying she’s made remarks that she doesn’t agree with.”
Someone engrave this into an obelisk.0 -
Did I say it had no effect on the service? Hunt was claiming that junior doctors were putting lives at risk. He was scare mongering. He was lying, as usual. Hospitals have put in a lot of effort to ensure that care was safe over the last 2 days.chestnut said:
I'm not sure that doing no work and it having no effect on the service is the way to prove your essential value.Chris_A said:The most disappointed people in Britain today? Hunt's spin doctors who, despite their zeal, and their master's scaremongering, have been unable to find a death to pin on the junior doctors' strike.
0 -
"To be fair to NaziShah, I think she's an idiot rather than an antisemite."JonnyJimmy said:To be fair to NaziShah, I think she's an idiot rather than an antisemite. She did also tweet support for World Holocaust Day, not something that proper antisemites would do.
But the overlap between these two characteristics is massive. I reckon she's an idiot and an antisemite.0 -
-
You can rest assured that Hunt will be working harder at finding distressed patients - and there will be some - than settling this dispute.richardDodd said:Chris A..could they find any distressed and in pain patients..if not then why do we pay doctors so much money..nobody dies and no one is in pain or distressed when they are on strike..
0 -
The must be the 29th reason he is finished. He can only be finished once you know. He's not Prometheus.MP_SE said:
If true, Cameron is finished regardless of whether we remain or leave.Plato_Says said:0 -
Chris A If as you say Hunt will be looking for distressed and in pain patients..and finds none..then why do we need the doctors who went on strike..Fire them all and then let them accept the new contract if they want to work again..0
-
Good evening.
I received my postal ballots for the London Mayoral election today.0 -
Most racists are idiots. Does that make them okay?JonnyJimmy said:To be fair to NaziShah, I think she's an idiot rather than an antisemite. She did also tweet support for World Holocaust Day, not something that proper antisemites would do.
0 -
Richard this comment is too stupid to be worth any reply.richardDodd said:Chris A If as you say Hunt will be looking for distressed and in pain patients..and finds none..then why do we need the doctors who went on strike..Fire them all and then let them accept the new contract if they want to work again..
0 -
That is what always struck about Nick Griffin, definitely not an idiot with his Cambridge education.AndyJS said:
Most racists are idiots. Does that make them okay?JonnyJimmy said:To be fair to NaziShah, I think she's an idiot rather than an antisemite. She did also tweet support for World Holocaust Day, not something that proper antisemites would do.
0 -
Chris A.. that means you cannot find an answer...this is a classic turn around negotiating tactic,,The BMA bluff has been called..now get them back to the table..0
-
If they want to conceal or pretend they are not antisemites they might.JonnyJimmy said:To be fair to NaziShah, I think she's an idiot rather than an antisemite. She did also tweet support for World Holocaust Day, not something that proper antisemites would do.
Many people insist they are not racist or sexist, or whatever and they may well sincerely believe that to the case about themselves, Their actions, however, may speak differently. Whether that is ultimately the case with this instance, we shall see, but people are quite capable of holding contradictory positions, of officially, on appropriate occasions, decrying racism, while promoting easily racist opinions at other times.0 -
Jeez Christ, Tyson Fury wasn't kidding when he said he had let himself go. He makes Ricky Fatman look like he was an amateur on the all you can eat, drink and shove up your nose game.0
-
Country just full of PC tossers looking for something to whinge about. Lots of useless half wits wittering on about racism , genderbollox etc , the country is well and truly F***ed up with no use whining no marks.kle4 said:
If they want to conceal or pretend they are not antisemites they might.JonnyJimmy said:To be fair to NaziShah, I think she's an idiot rather than an antisemite. She did also tweet support for World Holocaust Day, not something that proper antisemites would do.
Many people insist they are not racist or sexist, or whatever and they may well sincerely believe that to the case about themselves, Their actions, however, may speak differently. Whether that is ultimately the case with this instance, we shall see, but people are quite capable of holding contradictory positions, of officially, on appropriate occasions, decrying racism, while promoting easily racist opinions at other times.0 -
Related with Fiorina being picked as Cruz's VP, Cruz and Fiorina are going tomorrow on a tour of California, so he probably thinks that Indiana is already lost.JackW said:North Carolina - PPP
Clinton 44 .. Trump 44
Clinton 45 .. Cruz 40
Clinton 39 .. Kasich 46
Sanders 46 .. Trump 43
Sanders 46 .. Cruz 38
Sanders 41 .. Kasich 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_42716.pdf
Cruz has tanked in the opinion polls.0 -
Oh yes. There are actually 3 ballot papers to take care of. I've filled them in and posted them off this afternoon. However, my vote/s shall remain a secret with me.AndyJS said:
Have you decided how to vote?MikeK said:Good evening.
I received my postal ballots for the London Mayoral election today. 0 -
As a consequence of the referendum, it will be clear just how little Cameron, the Labour party, and the Trade Unions care for the working people. When I work from home I sometimes have day time TV on. Wonga, Quick Quick loans, internet gambling and sanctimounous charity appeals and jewellery shopping channels. All of which are allowed to prey on the innocent and the desperate. I heard that only once in a hundred years has the ability of a County Court to cut usorious rates of interest has ever been used, Add to that the middle class BBC tax and one thousand pound penalties on mostly women on minimum wage and the greedy banks with their overdraft fees. When did gambling debts become enforcable and what public interest was there in doing so? And the fixed odds gambling machines?
"The UK has been one of the main beneficiaries from free movement of labour in the EU.This should be the response of Remain" - not for the people.0 -
Do these losers not know when to pack it in , why embarrass your self by picking a VP when you are an also ran guaranteed to lose. Pathetic.Speedy said:
Related with Fiorina being picked as Cruz's VP, Cruz and Fiorina are going tomorrow on a tour of California, so he probably thinks that Indiana is already lost.JackW said:North Carolina - PPP
Clinton 44 .. Trump 44
Clinton 45 .. Cruz 40
Clinton 39 .. Kasich 46
Sanders 46 .. Trump 43
Sanders 46 .. Cruz 38
Sanders 41 .. Kasich 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_42716.pdf0 -
Islamic faith school is failed by Ofsted inspectors for undermining British values because it segregates male and female staff
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3561914/Islamic-faith-school-failed-Ofsted-inspectors-undermining-British-values.html0 -
You have to wonder what Fiorina thinks is in it for her at this point.Speedy said:
Related with Fiorina being picked as Cruz's VP, Cruz and Fiorina are going tomorrow on a tour of California, so he probably thinks that Indiana is already lost.JackW said:North Carolina - PPP
Clinton 44 .. Trump 44
Clinton 45 .. Cruz 40
Clinton 39 .. Kasich 46
Sanders 46 .. Trump 43
Sanders 46 .. Cruz 38
Sanders 41 .. Kasich 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_42716.pdf
Cruz has tanked in the opinion polls.0 -
Piles ??Floater said:
"Save our NHS" my arserichardDodd said:Chris A..could they find any distressed and in pain patients..if not then why do we pay doctors so much money..nobody dies and no one is in pain or distressed when they are on strike..
0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3561564/David-Cameron-mocks-Nigel-Farage-way-pronounces-poncey-foreign-sounding-name.html
Racist Cameron should have whip removed......0 -
Lucky you.MikeK said:
Oh yes. There are actually 3 ballot papers to take care of. I've filled them in and posted them off this afternoon. However, my vote/s shall remain a secret with me.AndyJS said:
Have you decided how to vote?MikeK said:Good evening.
I received my postal ballots for the London Mayoral election today.
All I get to vote for is the PCC election.
Whoopy-bloody-doo.0 -
Farage has said he doesn't care how his name is pronounced.nunu said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3561564/David-Cameron-mocks-Nigel-Farage-way-pronounces-poncey-foreign-sounding-name.html
Racist Cameron should have whip removed......0 -
If Remain wins, Dave needs to give Arron Banks a knighthood, maybe even a peerage for services to Remain.
https://twitter.com/HuffPostUKPol/status/7253773965772922890 -
He's an exception.FrancisUrquhart said:
That is what always struck about Nick Griffin, definitely not an idiot with his Cambridge education.AndyJS said:
Most racists are idiots. Does that make them okay?JonnyJimmy said:To be fair to NaziShah, I think she's an idiot rather than an antisemite. She did also tweet support for World Holocaust Day, not something that proper antisemites would do.
0 -
Ted Cruz has a 'major announcement' at 4pm EDT in about 90 minutes.
He's expected to announce that if he gets the nomination, Carly Fiorina will be his running mate.
Sounds a bit like a dead cat bounce.0 -
Which confirm he think he's going to lose. Last big card to play.Tim_B said:Ted Cruz has a 'major announcement' at 4pm EDT in about 90 minutes.
He's expected to announce that if he gets the nomination, Carly Fiorina will be his running mate.
Sounds a bit like a dead cat bounce.0 -
538's "expert average" of 92 for Trump in Cali is quite funny
0 -
-
Lol @ the expert who though he would win NebraskaPulpstar said:538's "expert average" of 92 for Trump in Cali is quite funny
0 -
but Cameron still used the term "forigen" in a derogatory way. Any way just wanted to see how quick Tories would be to defend him even though I know it wasn't actually racist and niether waas Shah's comment it was stupid.AndyJS said:
Farage has said he doesn't care how his name is pronounced.nunu said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3561564/David-Cameron-mocks-Nigel-Farage-way-pronounces-poncey-foreign-sounding-name.html
Racist Cameron should have whip removed......0 -
Nunu. Shah called for the "transportation" (read: deportation) of Israelis from Israel to the United States.nunu said:
but Cameron still used the term "forigen" in a derogatory way. Any way just wanted to see how quick Tories would be to defend him even though I know it wasn't actually racist and niether waas Shah's comment it was stupid.AndyJS said:
Farage has said he doesn't care how his name is pronounced.nunu said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3561564/David-Cameron-mocks-Nigel-Farage-way-pronounces-poncey-foreign-sounding-name.html
Racist Cameron should have whip removed......
Whether or not you think Cameron's comment was racist or not you have to admit Shah's was on a whole other scale.0 -
I'm not sure how the two are even remotely comparable.nunu said:
but Cameron still used the term "forigen" in a derogatory way. Any way just wanted to see how quick Tories would be to defend him even though I know it wasn't actually racist and niether waas Shah's comment it was stupid.AndyJS said:
Farage has said he doesn't care how his name is pronounced.nunu said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3561564/David-Cameron-mocks-Nigel-Farage-way-pronounces-poncey-foreign-sounding-name.html
Racist Cameron should have whip removed......
On the Mail article, it appears Farage's sarcasm went undetected in his deleted post.0 -
So the Fiorina rumours were right.0
-
Dunno. Does it enhance her credibility next time? I mean, if he were nominated it certainly does but...williamglenn said:
You have to wonder what Fiorina thinks is in it for her at this point.Speedy said:
Related with Fiorina being picked as Cruz's VP, Cruz and Fiorina are going tomorrow on a tour of California, so he probably thinks that Indiana is already lost.JackW said:North Carolina - PPP
Clinton 44 .. Trump 44
Clinton 45 .. Cruz 40
Clinton 39 .. Kasich 46
Sanders 46 .. Trump 43
Sanders 46 .. Cruz 38
Sanders 41 .. Kasich 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_42716.pdf
Cruz has tanked in the opinion polls.0 -
Can I use this opportunity to call out the 538 bullshit.
I mean, in PA, Trump was <1% to get the 56% he did. Did he really hit a one in a hundred shot?0 -
Propping up a loser.Wanderer said:
Dunno. Does it enhance her credibility next time? I mean, if he were nominated it certainly does but...williamglenn said:
You have to wonder what Fiorina thinks is in it for her at this point.Speedy said:
Related with Fiorina being picked as Cruz's VP, Cruz and Fiorina are going tomorrow on a tour of California, so he probably thinks that Indiana is already lost.JackW said:North Carolina - PPP
Clinton 44 .. Trump 44
Clinton 45 .. Cruz 40
Clinton 39 .. Kasich 46
Sanders 46 .. Trump 43
Sanders 46 .. Cruz 38
Sanders 41 .. Kasich 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_42716.pdf
Cruz has tanked in the opinion polls.0 -
Well, yes. I don't see it. But she evidently does.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Propping up a loser.Wanderer said:
Dunno. Does it enhance her credibility next time? I mean, if he were nominated it certainly does but...williamglenn said:
You have to wonder what Fiorina thinks is in it for her at this point.Speedy said:
Related with Fiorina being picked as Cruz's VP, Cruz and Fiorina are going tomorrow on a tour of California, so he probably thinks that Indiana is already lost.JackW said:North Carolina - PPP
Clinton 44 .. Trump 44
Clinton 45 .. Cruz 40
Clinton 39 .. Kasich 46
Sanders 46 .. Trump 43
Sanders 46 .. Cruz 38
Sanders 41 .. Kasich 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_42716.pdf
Cruz has tanked in the opinion polls.0 -
Sam Wong is kicking Nate's ass this election.TheWhiteRabbit said:Can I use this opportunity to call out the 538 bullshit.
I mean, in PA, Trump was <1% to get the 56% he did. Did he really hit a one in a hundred shot?</p>0 -
Sounds like the editor of the Jewish Chronicle is alleging on Sky that Jeremy Corbyn directly censored Naz Shah statement to the HOC insisting on deleting a wider acceptance of anti Semitism in the labour party and he is seeking an enquiry into the leader's office role. This allegation could be very serious for Corbyn if true and no doubt Guido will be working on it as of now0
