I've just read Boris Johnson's manifesto from yesterday. He says after Brexit there will continue to be free trade and access to the EU single market. Then he says there will be a points-based immigration policy. Well you can't have both, because the single market equals the four freedoms. You simply cannot have both unless you change the EU's policy in a way that one single country that is about to leave the EU will not possibly be able to.
He also says British people will still be able to go and work in the EU, to live there, to study and buy homes there, and to settle down. No conditions mentioned. But Britain, he says, will operate a points-based immigration policy. So we get an irregular verb:
* foreigners come here as immigrants (dirty word) * British people go abroad to work, live, study, and settle down (friendly words)
What is he trying to do? Reform the EU and stay in? We know he has a personal plan and a big ego, but does he actually have a feasible aim here? Doesn't seem to me that he does. Isn't this likely to be realised by even the most diehard Leavites, if not in the re-election-hungry PCP then surely among the membership?
It's an obvious point, a bit like "the SNP doesn't know what currency they want" in 2014. What will Boris say when it's put to him?
If he teams up with Marine Le Pen and gets France on his side - which would require that she get into the Elysée next May, he might possibly have a chance. But would he do that?
Is there value in laying Boris at 2.22?
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
At least in 5 years time, when all this is over, and we want to come back crawling to the EU - we could do it very simply by the UK becoming an overseas territory of Gibraltar.
One of Lisbon's provisions (I was reading up trying to find out the diplomacy around the creation of article 50, which I didn't find) was for easy removal and addition of overseas territories into the union.
I've just read Boris Johnson's manifesto from yesterday. He says after Brexit there will continue to be free trade and access to the EU single market. Then he says there will be a points-based immigration policy. Well you can't have both, because the single market equals the four freedoms. You simply cannot have both unless you change the EU's policy in a way that one single country that is about to leave the EU will not possibly be able to.
He also says British people will still be able to go and work in the EU, to live there, to study and buy homes there, and to settle down. No conditions mentioned. But Britain, he says, will operate a points-based immigration policy. So we get an irregular verb:
* foreigners come here as immigrants (dirty word) * British people go abroad to work, live, study, and settle down (friendly words)
What is he trying to do? Reform the EU and stay in? We know he has a personal plan and a big ego, but does he actually have a feasible aim here? Doesn't seem to me that he does. Isn't this likely to be realised by even the most diehard Leavites, if not in the re-election-hungry PCP then surely among the membership?
It's an obvious point, a bit like "the SNP doesn't know what currency they want" in 2014. What will Boris say when it's put to him?
If he teams up with Marine Le Pen and gets France on his side - which would require that she get into the Elysée next May, he might possibly have a chance. But would he do that?
Is there value in laying Boris at 2.22?
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
Would you agree that the clearer that becomes, the less likely he is to win the Tory leadership?
LOL. That is a classic of rewriting history. No Richard. Just for the record. They didn't offer anything of the sort.
In what way would this fabled 'Associate Membership' differ from what we had?
You tell me. You are the one saying it was offered to us.
- Full acess to the Single Market, including services and financial passporting - No need to adopt the Euro - Not liable for Eurozone bailouts - No need to join Schengen - Reduced membership fee - Explicit opt-out from ever-closer union. - Partial opt-outs on benefits for EU citizens - Various other opt-outs on social, justice and residency directives
That's undeniably not 'Full Membership'. I think it's pretty reasonable to call it Associate Membership.
We've asked about Corbyn's position being untenable. How is it that Rosie Winterton is still in place. The coup was apparently run from within the whip's office, three-quarters of the Shadow Cabinet have left, virtually the entire PLP is in revolt and about to no confidence the leader: doesn't that undermine her position at all?
I've just read Boris Johnson's manifesto from yesterday. He says after Brexit there will continue to be free trade and access to the EU single market. Then he says there will be a points-based immigration policy. Well you can't have both, because the single market equals the four freedoms. You simply cannot have both unless you change the EU's policy in a way that one single country that is about to leave the EU will not possibly be able to.
He also says British people will still be able to go and work in the EU, to live there, to study and buy homes there, and to settle down. No conditions mentioned. But Britain, he says, will operate a points-based immigration policy. So we get an irregular verb:
* foreigners come here as immigrants (dirty word) * British people go abroad to work, live, study, and settle down (friendly words)
What is he trying to do? Reform the EU and stay in? We know he has a personal plan and a big ego, but does he actually have a feasible aim here? Doesn't seem to me that he does. Isn't this likely to be realised by even the most diehard Leavites, if not in the re-election-hungry PCP then surely among the membership?
It's an obvious point, a bit like "the SNP doesn't know what currency they want" in 2014. What will Boris say when it's put to him?
If he teams up with Marine Le Pen and gets France on his side - which would require that she get into the Elysée next May, he might possibly have a chance. But would he do that?
Is there value in laying Boris at 2.22?
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
According to linkedin, John Llewellyn was global chief economist at Lehman Brothers for a decade up to September 2008. It does not say why he left. *innocent face*
So this economics "expert" John Llewellyn that Mr Meeks recommends we take note of , once had a very senior role at Lehman Brothers and ceased working at Lehman Brothers when they went bust in 2008.............
I've just read Boris Johnson's manifesto from yesterday. He says after Brexit there will continue to be free trade and access to the EU single market. Then he says there will be a points-based immigration policy. Well you can't have both, because the single market equals the four freedoms. You simply cannot have both unless you change the EU's policy in a way that one single country that is about to leave the EU will not possibly be able to.
He also says British people will still be able to go and work in the EU, to live there, to study and buy homes there, and to settle down. No conditions mentioned. But Britain, he says, will operate a points-based immigration policy. So we get an irregular verb:
* foreigners come here as immigrants (dirty word) * British people go abroad to work, live, study, and settle down (friendly words)
What is he trying to do? Reform the EU and stay in? We know he has a personal plan and a big ego, but does he actually have a feasible aim here? Doesn't seem to me that he does. Isn't this likely to be realised by even the most diehard Leavites, if not in the re-election-hungry PCP then surely among the membership?
It's an obvious point, a bit like "the SNP doesn't know what currency they want" in 2014. What will Boris say when it's put to him?
If he teams up with Marine Le Pen and gets France on his side - which would require that she get into the Elysée next May, he might possibly have a chance. But would he do that?
Is there value in laying Boris at 2.22?
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
LOL. That is a classic of rewriting history. No Richard. Just for the record. They didn't offer anything of the sort.
In what way would this fabled 'Associate Membership' differ from what we had?
You tell me. You are the one saying it was offered to us.
- Full acess to the Single Market, including services and financial passporting - No need to adopt the Euro - Not liable for Eurozone bailouts - No need to join Shengen - Reduced membership fee - Explicit opt-out from ever-closer union. - Partial opt-outs on benefits for EU citizens - Various other opt-outs on social, justice and residency directives
That's undeniably not 'Full Membership'. I think it's pretty reasonable to call it Associate Membership.
I think the difference is no-one trusts out politicians to defend that.
Can any Leaver tell me how this particular circle is going to be squared?
There will be Controls on Immigration There will be an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
Irish nationals would have the right to migrate here. Non-Irish nationals would not.
The situation would be much the same as when immigration controls were introduced on Commonwealth citizens in 1962. Irish nationals did not lose the right to settle here.
I've just read Boris Johnson's manifesto from yesterday. He says after Brexit there will continue to be free trade and access to the EU single market. Then he says there will be a points-based immigration policy. Well you can't have both, because the single market equals the four freedoms. You simply cannot have both unless you change the EU's policy in a way that one single country that is about to leave the EU will not possibly be able to.
He also says British people will still be able to go and work in the EU, to live there, to study and buy homes there, and to settle down. No conditions mentioned. But Britain, he says, will operate a points-based immigration policy. So we get an irregular verb:
* foreigners come here as immigrants (dirty word) * British people go abroad to work, live, study, and settle down (friendly words)
What is he trying to do? Reform the EU and stay in? We know he has a personal plan and a big ego, but does he actually have a feasible aim here? Doesn't seem to me that he does. Isn't this likely to be realised by even the most diehard Leavites, if not in the re-election-hungry PCP then surely among the membership? Most of them understand "you can't have something for nothing".
It's an obvious point, just as "the SNP doesn't know what currency they want" was in 2014. What will Boris say when it's put to him?
If he teams up with Marine Le Pen and gets France on his side - which would require that she get into the Elysée next May, he might possibly have a chance. But would he do that?
Is there value in laying Boris at 2.22?
Full details of the Boris Johnson's controversial points based system:
1 Point for people who are citizens of EU states 0 Points for anyone else
You require 1 point to get an NI number and work in the UK.
LOL. That is a classic of rewriting history. No Richard. Just for the record. They didn't offer anything of the sort.
In what way would this fabled 'Associate Membership' differ from what we had?
You tell me. You are the one saying it was offered to us.
- Full acess to the Single Market, including services and financial passporting - No need to adopt the Euro - Not liable for Eurozone bailouts - No need to join Shengen - Reduced membership fee - Explicit opt-out from ever-closer union. - Partial opt-outs on benefits for EU citizens - Various other opt-outs on social, justice and residency directives
That's undeniably not 'Full Membership'. I think it's pretty reasonable to call it Associate Membership.
That sounds pretty good. Can we have a vote on it?
I've just read Boris Johnson's manifesto from yesterday. He says after Brexit there will continue to be free trade and access to the EU single market. Then he says there will be a points-based immigration policy. Well you can't have both, because the single market equals the four freedoms. You simply cannot have both unless you change the EU's policy in a way that one single country that is about to leave the EU will not possibly be able to.
He also says British people will still be able to go and work in the EU, to live there, to study and buy homes there, and to settle down. No conditions mentioned. But Britain, he says, will operate a points-based immigration policy. So we get an irregular verb:
* foreigners come here as immigrants (dirty word) * British people go abroad to work, live, study, and settle down (friendly words)
What is he trying to do? Reform the EU and stay in? We know he has a personal plan and a big ego, but does he actually have a feasible aim here? Doesn't seem to me that he does. Isn't this likely to be realised by even the most diehard Leavites, if not in the re-election-hungry PCP then surely among the membership?
It's an obvious point, a bit like "the SNP doesn't know what currency they want" in 2014. What will Boris say when it's put to him?
If he teams up with Marine Le Pen and gets France on his side - which would require that she get into the Elysée next May, he might possibly have a chance. But would he do that?
Is there value in laying Boris at 2.22?
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
Would you agree that the clearer that becomes, the less likely he is to win the Tory leadership?
He was only ever 52-48 in favour of Brexit himself. Since he perfectly mirrors the nation (including the current outpouring of buyer's remorse) he's the obvious choice for PM.
Can any Leaver tell me how this particular circle is going to be squared?
There will be Controls on Immigration There will be an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
Irish nationals would have the right to migrate here. Non-Irish nationals would not.
The situation would be much the same as when immigration controls were introduced on Commonwealth citizens in 1962. Irish nationals did not lose the right to settle here.
Anyone from Europe can just go to the ROI, then go into NI with no checks, therefore open border with Europe
According to linkedin, John Llewellyn was global chief economist at Lehman Brothers for a decade up to September 2008. It does not say why he left. *innocent face*
So this economics "expert" John Llewellyn that Mr Meeks recommends we take note of , once had a very senior role at Lehman Brothers and ceased working at Lehman Brothers when they went bust in 2008.............
This word 'expert' has so many meanings - Mervyn King - EXPERT to trust Anyone else who says anything beastly about Brexit 'expert' don't touch with a bargepole.
We've asked about Corbyn's position being untenable. How is it that Rosie Winterton is still in place. The coup was apparently run from within the whip's office, three-quarters of the Shadow Cabinet have left, virtually the entire PLP is in revolt and about to no confidence the leader: doesn't that undermine her position at all?
She might be the one organising it. Or have I been watching too much House of Cards
I've just read Boris Johnson's manifesto from yesterday. He says after Brexit there will continue to be free trade and access to the EU single market. Then he says there will be a points-based immigration policy. Well you can't have both, because the single market equals the four freedoms. You simply cannot have both unless you change the EU's policy in a way that one single country that is about to leave the EU will not possibly be able to.
He also says British people will still be able to go and work in the EU, to live there, to study and buy homes there, and to settle down. No conditions mentioned. But Britain, he says, will operate a points-based immigration policy. So we get an irregular verb:
* foreigners come here as immigrants (dirty word) * British people go abroad to work, live, study, and settle down (friendly words)
What is he trying to do? Reform the EU and stay in? We know he has a personal plan and a big ego, but does he actually have a feasible aim here? Doesn't seem to me that he does. Isn't this likely to be realised by even the most diehard Leavites, if not in the re-election-hungry PCP then surely among the membership? Most of them understand "you can't have something for nothing".
It's an obvious point, just as "the SNP doesn't know what currency they want" was in 2014. What will Boris say when it's put to him?
If he teams up with Marine Le Pen and gets France on his side - which would require that she get into the Elysée next May, he might possibly have a chance. But would he do that?
Is there value in laying Boris at 2.22?
Full details of the Boris Johnson's controversial points based system:
1 Point for people who are citizens of EU states 0 Points for anyone else
You require 1 point to get an NI number and work in the UK.
Hearing lots of excoriating opinion about Corbyn in my office today - not fit to be PM, not a leader, Labour are doomed with him - but in fairness while this was from some Labour folk, I don't think the views of Lab voters in the deep Tory shires are reflective of the wider party.
We've asked about Corbyn's position being untenable. How is it that Rosie Winterton is still in place. The coup was apparently run from within the whip's office, three-quarters of the Shadow Cabinet have left, virtually the entire PLP is in revolt and about to no confidence the leader: doesn't that undermine her position at all?
She might be the one organising it. Or have I been watching too much House of Cards
The whip has a lot of power. Useful when running a coup. More likely to be sacked.
I've just read Boris Johnson's manifesto from yesterday. He says after Brexit there will continue to be free trade and access to the EU single market. Then he says there will be a points-based immigration policy. Well you can't have both, because the single market equals the four freedoms. You simply cannot have both unless you change the EU's policy in a way that one single country that is about to leave the EU will not possibly be able to.
He also says British people will still be able to go and work in the EU, to live there, to study and buy homes there, and to settle down. No conditions mentioned. But Britain, he says, will operate a points-based immigration policy. So we get an irregular verb:
* foreigners come here as immigrants (dirty word) * British people go abroad to work, live, study, and settle down (friendly words)
What is he trying to do? Reform the EU and stay in? We know he has a personal plan and a big ego, but does he actually have a feasible aim here? Doesn't seem to me that he does. Isn't this likely to be realised by even the most diehard Leavites, if not in the re-election-hungry PCP then surely among the membership?
It's an obvious point, a bit like "the SNP doesn't know what currency they want" in 2014. What will Boris say when it's put to him?
If he teams up with Marine Le Pen and gets France on his side - which would require that she get into the Elysée next May, he might possibly have a chance. But would he do that?
Is there value in laying Boris at 2.22?
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
I'm still 50-50 we'll stay in
If we do (and I hope that will still be the outcome), the betrayal needs to be totally owned by the Euro-headbangers so that our politics is never again held to ransom by them.
LOL. That is a classic of rewriting history. No Richard. Just for the record. They didn't offer anything of the sort.
In what way would this fabled 'Associate Membership' differ from what we had?
You tell me. You are the one saying it was offered to us.
- Full acess to the Single Market, including services and financial passporting - No need to adopt the Euro - Not liable for Eurozone bailouts - No need to join Schengen - Reduced membership fee - Explicit opt-out from ever-closer union. - Partial opt-outs on benefits for EU citizens - Various other opt-outs on social, justice and residency directives
That's undeniably not 'Full Membership'. I think it's pretty reasonable to call it Associate Membership.
So exactly what we had before then. Not associate membership at all. NO change from the situation we have been in since 1995.
Its no wonder you guys lost if that is the best you can come up with
LOL. That is a classic of rewriting history. No Richard. Just for the record. They didn't offer anything of the sort.
In what way would this fabled 'Associate Membership' differ from what we had?
You tell me. You are the one saying it was offered to us.
- Full acess to the Single Market, including services and financial passporting - No need to adopt the Euro - Not liable for Eurozone bailouts - No need to join Schengen - Reduced membership fee - Explicit opt-out from ever-closer union. - Partial opt-outs on benefits for EU citizens - Various other opt-outs on social, justice and residency directives
That's undeniably not 'Full Membership'. I think it's pretty reasonable to call it Associate Membership.
Except that Associate Member actually has a different meaning, even if now defunct as an entity.
Found this graphic useful in seeing just how many overlapping relationships exist:
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
He never did. It was a newspaper column that got out of hand.
He gambled everything on losing, and it turns out he has.
I dont think that I have ever agreed with Alistair Campbell but what he said yesterday was dead right, the Leave campaign wanted to lose 51-49. They knew all that they said was lies and were relying on not winning. They just wanted the result to be close enough to destabalise Cameron. Now they have won they are desperately trying to pull back on all their promises. meanwhile the markets act.
This word 'expert' has so many meanings - Mervyn King - EXPERT to trust Anyone else who says anything beastly about Brexit 'expert' don't touch with a bargepole.
What makes this one particularly funny is of course that Mervyn King was one of the 364 experts who signed that infamous letter in Maggie's time.
"If they get their way the Labour Party will become a cult rather than a political party. They might still win Knowsley though."
They might but ... "Knowsley, which neighbours St Helens, had 36,558 people voting to leave (51.6%)."
I haven't checked Bootle though.
Sefton was 51.9% Remain - but I would expect Bootle to have been strongly Leave, outweighed by "Remainy" Southport. Rod would probably have a better idea of the detail?
I've just read Boris Johnson's manifesto from yesterday. He says after Brexit there will continue to be free trade and access to the EU single market. Then he says there will be a points-based immigration policy. Well you can't have both, because the single market equals the four freedoms. You simply cannot have both unless you change the EU's policy in a way that one single country that is about to leave the EU will not possibly be able to.
He also says British people will still be able to go and work in the EU, to live there, to study and buy homes there, and to settle down. No conditions mentioned. But Britain, he says, will operate a points-based immigration policy. So we get an irregular verb:
* foreigners come here as immigrants (dirty word) * British people go abroad to work, live, study, and settle down (friendly words)
What is he trying to do? Reform the EU and stay in? We know he has a personal plan and a big ego, but does he actually have a feasible aim here? Doesn't seem to me that he does. Isn't this likely to be realised by even the most diehard Leavites, if not in the re-election-hungry PCP then surely among the membership?
It's an obvious point, a bit like "the SNP doesn't know what currency they want" in 2014. What will Boris say when it's put to him?
If he teams up with Marine Le Pen and gets France on his side - which would require that she get into the Elysée next May, he might possibly have a chance. But would he do that?
Is there value in laying Boris at 2.22?
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
Would you agree that the clearer that becomes, the less likely he is to win the Tory leadership?
He was only ever 52-48 in favour of Brexit himself. Since he perfectly mirrors the nation (including the current outpouring of buyer's remorse) he's the obvious choice for PM.
Sounds like a recipe for chaos. Sooner or later Schrödinger's cat stops being in superposed states, gets observed, and is either in or out of the EU.
Some of my ridiculous Corbynite friends who had gone off Corbyn have now decided to campaign for him again.
Their idiocy is boundless, much as I love them.
Did they explain their thinking?
"He's the only decent politician", "he believes what he says", "it;s not democratic to overthrow him", even "the Tories are secretly scared of him"
They are just mad. And these are people crying over Brexit, who fail to see that one of the only ways of preventing it (however unlikely) is ejecting Corbyn and getting a new leader with REMAINIAN convictions (and electability) to fight the GE.
Labour are in a v. tricky spot. Damned with Corbyn and he won't go quietly and in a way that minimises damage. Reminiscent of SLab. Chilcot keeps coming up.
LOL. That is a classic of rewriting history. No Richard. Just for the record. They didn't offer anything of the sort.
In what way would this fabled 'Associate Membership' differ from what we had?
You tell me. You are the one saying it was offered to us.
- Full acess to the Single Market, including services and financial passporting - No need to adopt the Euro - Not liable for Eurozone bailouts - No need to join Schengen - Reduced membership fee - Explicit opt-out from ever-closer union. - Partial opt-outs on benefits for EU citizens - Various other opt-outs on social, justice and residency directives
That's undeniably not 'Full Membership'. I think it's pretty reasonable to call it Associate Membership.
So exactly what we had before then. Not associate membership at all. NO change from the situation we have been in since 1995.
Its no wonder you guys lost if that is the best you can come up with
Eh? Yes, if you like we already had 'Associate Membership', even before if was enhanced and codified in the renegotiation. That's my entire point.
Oh, and I didn't 'lose' because I wasn't on either side. But you lot who were on the Leave side failed to persuade me, for reasons which are now unfolding in real-time before our eyes.
LOL. That is a classic of rewriting history. No Richard. Just for the record. They didn't offer anything of the sort.
In what way would this fabled 'Associate Membership' differ from what we had?
You tell me. You are the one saying it was offered to us.
- Full acess to the Single Market, including services and financial passporting - No need to adopt the Euro - Not liable for Eurozone bailouts - No need to join Schengen - Reduced membership fee - Explicit opt-out from ever-closer union. - Partial opt-outs on benefits for EU citizens - Various other opt-outs on social, justice and residency directives
That's undeniably not 'Full Membership'. I think it's pretty reasonable to call it Associate Membership.
So exactly what we had before then. Not associate membership at all. NO change from the situation we have been in since 1995.
Its no wonder you guys lost if that is the best you can come up with
But Richard, that is associate membership.
It was also codified in the deal with no ever closer union, no discrimination eurozone vs non-eurozone, no banking union.
We already had associate membership, Dave got some of that formalised.
It wasn't broken. There was immigration, and there was some nebulous concept of sovereignty whereby Andrea Leadsom felt it was an imposition tantamount to invasion for us to write standardised kettle specifications into our own regulatory framework.
There was also VAT on home energy supplies, which of course the Conservative Party de-zero-rated in the first place and no one thought more about (even GB only wanted to reduce the rate) until Michael Gove two weeks ago suggested re-zero-rating; the tampon tax; and droite de suite.
Was it really worth bringing the whole house down for that?
I've just read Boris Johnson's manifesto from yesterday. He says after Brexit there will continue to be free trade and access to the EU single market. Then he says there will be a points-based immigration policy. Well you can't have both, because the single market equals the four freedoms. You simply cannot have both unless you change the EU's policy in a way that one single country that is about to leave the EU will not possibly be able to.
He also says British people will still be able to go and work in the EU, to live there, to study and buy homes there, and to settle down. No conditions mentioned. But Britain, he says, will operate a points-based immigration policy. So we get an irregular verb:
* foreigners come here as immigrants (dirty word) * British people go abroad to work, live, study, and settle down (friendly words)
What is he trying to do? Reform the EU and stay in? We know he has a personal plan and a big ego, but does he actually have a feasible aim here? Doesn't seem to me that he does. Isn't this likely to be realised by even the most diehard Leavites, if not in the re-election-hungry PCP then surely among the membership?
It's an obvious point, a bit like "the SNP doesn't know what currency they want" in 2014. What will Boris say when it's put to him?
If he teams up with Marine Le Pen and gets France on his side - which would require that she get into the Elysée next May, he might possibly have a chance. But would he do that?
Is there value in laying Boris at 2.22?
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
I'm still 50-50 we'll stay in
Is there a market anywhere on that?
I'd say it is more 60-40 we'll stay. About a year into the tortuous negotiations it will be crystal clear what an economic disaster leaving has become.
According to the BBC, 57 Labour MPs from the 2015 intake have signed a letter saying Jeremy Corbyn should resign. Also, Labour has agreed to no confidence tonight and secret ballot tomorrow.
I see the Remainers are still on Anger and Denial.
It could be worse, lads, you could be living in an EU country and waiting for the sword of Damocles to finally descend.
As a Leaver, why do you believe that would be worse? Surely the end of the EU is what you wanted?
I am curious whether any of the serious Leavers on here have any different thoughts now about the geopolitical consequences, in particular the likelihood of the UK splitting up which most of them were trying to downplay before the vote.
According to the BBC, 57 Labour MPs from the 2015 intake have signed a letter saying Jeremy Corbyn should resign. Also, Labour has agreed to no confidence tonight and secret ballot tomorrow.
There will be a leadership election. Now question is more of timetable.
I've just read Boris Johnson's manifesto from yesterday. He says after Brexit there will continue to be free trade and access to the EU single market. Then he says there will be a points-based immigration policy. Well you can't have both, because the single market equals the four freedoms. You simply cannot have both unless you change the EU's policy in a way that one single country that is about to leave the EU will not possibly be able to.
He also says British people will still be able to go and work in the EU, to live there, to study and buy homes there, and to settle down. No conditions mentioned. But Britain, he says, will operate a points-based immigration policy. So we get an irregular verb:
* foreigners come here as immigrants (dirty word) * British people go abroad to work, live, study, and settle down (friendly words)
What is he trying to do? Reform the EU and stay in? We know he has a personal plan and a big ego, but does he actually have a feasible aim here? Doesn't seem to me that he does. Isn't this likely to be realised by even the most diehard Leavites, if not in the re-election-hungry PCP then surely among the membership?
It's an obvious point, a bit like "the SNP doesn't know what currency they want" in 2014. What will Boris say when it's put to him?
If he teams up with Marine Le Pen and gets France on his side - which would require that she get into the Elysée next May, he might possibly have a chance. But would he do that?
Is there value in laying Boris at 2.22?
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
I'm still 50-50 we'll stay in
If we do (and I hope that will still be the outcome), the betrayal needs to be totally owned by the Euro-headbangers so that our politics is never again held to ransom by them.
hmmm
that;s a bit of one sided analysis imo
nobody forced Cameron to call a referendum. He was sitting pretty in 2015 master of all he surveyed and could safely have ignore the headbangers
he lost the referendum because he and his colleagues had just forgotten why they were elected and the voters kicked them. The headbangers are more of a sympton of a political class that thinks it knows best and never listens. It's why it's an international phenomenon and not just a UK one.
maybe when the politicians ditch the "theyve nowhere else to go" mantra and start respecting their electorates we'll make better progress.
O/T but can anyone please confirm what time the England football match is on tonight? I'm seeing conflicting information from usually reliable sources. Thanks.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
He never did. It was a newspaper column that got out of hand.
He gambled everything on losing, and it turns out he has.
I dont think that I have ever agreed with Alistair Campbell but what he said yesterday was dead right, the Leave campaign wanted to lose 51-49. They knew all that they said was lies and were relying on not winning. They just wanted the result to be close enough to destabalise Cameron. Now they have won they are desperately trying to pull back on all their promises. meanwhile the markets act.
They've rowed back on the two big lies already (£350m/wk to NHS, Immigration).
O/T but can anyone please confirm what time the England football match is on tonight? I'm seeing conflicting information from usually reliable sources. Thanks.
I see the Remainers are still on Anger and Denial.
It could be worse, lads, you could be living in an EU country and waiting for the sword of Damocles to finally descend.
Nah. We were a sovereign nation then and are a sovereign nation now. Remainers never lacked confidence in our country, or our own primacy.
All we are doing is pointing out the bleedin' obvious that 89.757% of claims made by Brexiteers were and are sheer unadulterated bullshit. And illogical sheer unadulterated bullshit at that.
That was an awful article. All the brownie points he'd won with me evaporated. Then again Aaronovitch compared all Leavers with Enoch.
Trevor Phillips' article doesn't explain how Leave won in places like Slough, Luton, Birmingham, Bradford, and almost won in Hounslow, Leicester, Newham.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
He never did. It was a newspaper column that got out of hand.
He gambled everything on losing, and it turns out he has.
I dont think that I have ever agreed with Alistair Campbell but what he said yesterday was dead right, the Leave campaign wanted to lose 51-49. They knew all that they said was lies and were relying on not winning. They just wanted the result to be close enough to destabalise Cameron. Now they have won they are desperately trying to pull back on all their promises. meanwhile the markets act.
They've rowed back on the two big lies already (£350m/wk to NHS, Immigration).
given how confident those running the leave campaign were clearly it was felt that victory was a distinct possibility. If Boris didn't want to win he would have put in a shit performance at the final Wembley debate when polls were neck and neck. I suspect he mostly wanted Cameron gone and would then deal with the consequences afterwards.
Mr. Borough, indeed, Parliament is sovereign and it would be entirely legal for the Commons to either vote against the referendum result or collectively decide to ignore it.
However, that would replace the current collection of crises with a new one.
I see the Remainers are still on Anger and Denial.
It could be worse, lads, you could be living in an EU country and waiting for the sword of Damocles to finally descend.
Nah. We were a sovereign nation then and are a sovereign nation now. Remainers never lacked confidence in our country, or our own primacy.
All we are doing is pointing out the bleedin' obvious that 89.757% of claims made by Brexiteers were and are sheer unadulterated bullshit. And illogical sheer unadulterated bullshit at that.
and yet it was more convincing than Remain it seems.
I see the Remainers are still on Anger and Denial.
It could be worse, lads, you could be living in an EU country and waiting for the sword of Damocles to finally descend.
As a Leaver, why do you believe that would be worse? Surely the end of the EU is what you wanted?
I am curious whether any of the serious Leavers on here have any different thoughts now about the geopolitical consequences, in particular the likelihood of the UK splitting up which most of them were trying to downplay before the vote.
Personally I am quite happy with Scottish Independence. I was happy with it 2 years ago and have not changed my view. My only concern for them would be the financial risks and the fact that they seem hell bent on getting back into the EU which seems utterly ludicrous to me.
The core of the EU will unify. It has to or the Eurozone will eventually tear itself apart.
Alternatively they will not unify and they will tear themselves apart. Given the suffering this will cause to the populations of the Eurozone I am very much in favour of the former solution as a least worst solution. But it would be better if they had never embarked on this course in the first place.
I dont think that I have ever agreed with Alistair Campbell but what he said yesterday was dead right, the Leave campaign wanted to lose 51-49. They knew all that they said was lies and were relying on not winning. They just wanted the result to be close enough to destabalise Cameron. Now they have won they are desperately trying to pull back on all their promises. meanwhile the markets act.
Actually, that makes zero sense, except possibly in the case of Boris. The rest of the prominent Leavers had either been firm BOOers for years (IDS, Fox, Grayling etc), and/or were Cameron supporters anyway (Gove, for example).
It is becoming increasingly clear that Boris does not want the UK to leave the EU.
He never did. It was a newspaper column that got out of hand.
He gambled everything on losing, and it turns out he has.
I dont think that I have ever agreed with Alistair Campbell but what he said yesterday was dead right, the Leave campaign wanted to lose 51-49. They knew all that they said was lies and were relying on not winning. They just wanted the result to be close enough to destabalise Cameron. Now they have won they are desperately trying to pull back on all their promises. meanwhile the markets act.
They've rowed back on the two big lies already (£350m/wk to NHS, Immigration).
given how confident those running the leave campaign were clearly it was felt that victory was a distinct possibility. If Boris didn't want to win he would have put in a shit performance at the final Wembley debate when polls were neck and neck. I suspect he mostly wanted Cameron gone and would then deal with the consequences afterwards.
I do hope that you're right. I'm not too upset that Cameron's gone since he got us into this mess, although I prefer him to Boris. Now all we need is for Boris to 'deal with the consequences.'
I see the Remainers are still on Anger and Denial.
It could be worse, lads, you could be living in an EU country and waiting for the sword of Damocles to finally descend.
As a Leaver, why do you believe that would be worse? Surely the end of the EU is what you wanted?
I am curious whether any of the serious Leavers on here have any different thoughts now about the geopolitical consequences, in particular the likelihood of the UK splitting up which most of them were trying to downplay before the vote.
I've always been intensely relaxed about Scottish independence. I think it would be good for both England and Scotland if Scotland was self governed.
Lammy's an idiot. Any attempt to block Brexit will just create an enormous backlash. The only extremely slim chance we have is the government never quite getting round to invoking Article 50. That needs things to go wrong very, very quickly and enough regrexiters colluding by pretending not to notice. Neither slim possibility is helped by Lammy enraging Brexiters too soon. He should shut up and stop being an idiot.
I see the Remainers are still on Anger and Denial.
It could be worse, lads, you could be living in an EU country and waiting for the sword of Damocles to finally descend.
Nah. We were a sovereign nation then and are a sovereign nation now. Remainers never lacked confidence in our country, or our own primacy.
All we are doing is pointing out the bleedin' obvious that 89.757% of claims made by Brexiteers were and are sheer unadulterated bullshit. And illogical sheer unadulterated bullshit at that.
and yet it was more convincing than Remain it seems.
why was that ?
Because the Sun and the queen backed Leave? The last time the Sun backed a loser in a British GE or referendum was in 1974.
Mr. Borough, indeed, Parliament is sovereign and it would be entirely legal for the Commons to either vote against the referendum result or collectively decide to ignore it.
However, that would replace the current collection of crises with a new one.
Crisis consolidation, as it were.
Sounds to me like the right path to take. Not to ignore it but to say "Thanks for the advice, but on consideration we are deciding to instruct the government to keep Britain in the EU." The question is how to package it. They need some changed circumstance or other.
Perhaps someone could show Boris where his sword is?
Why do some people find it difficult to differentiate between someone having a right to travel to the UK without a Visa, and having a right to work in the UK without a work permit?
Lammy ranting on Sky: "Referendum needs 2/3rds majority. We can't have rule by the mob! I'll never vote for Brexit in the HoC"
Lammy is right about parliament being sovereign so if he wants to overturn the referendum result he could set up his own party with that policy and stand candidates at the general election. If he won a majority he'd be entitled to overturn the result.
LOL. That is a classic of rewriting history. No Richard. Just for the record. They didn't offer anything of the sort.
In what way would this fabled 'Associate Membership' differ from what we had?
You tell me. You are the one saying it was offered to us.
- Full acess to the Single Market, including services and financial passporting - No need to adopt the Euro - Not liable for Eurozone bailouts - No need to join Schengen - Reduced membership fee - Explicit opt-out from ever-closer union. - Partial opt-outs on benefits for EU citizens - Various other opt-outs on social, justice and residency directives
That's undeniably not 'Full Membership'. I think it's pretty reasonable to call it Associate Membership.
So exactly what we had before then. Not associate membership at all. NO change from the situation we have been in since 1995.
Its no wonder you guys lost if that is the best you can come up with
But Richard, that is associate membership.
It was also codified in the deal with no ever closer union, no discrimination eurozone vs non-eurozone, no banking union.
We already had associate membership, Dave got some of that formalised.
It wasn't broken. There was immigration, and there was some nebulous concept of sovereignty whereby Andrea Leadsom felt it was an imposition tantamount to invasion for us to write standardised kettle specifications into our own regulatory framework.
There was also VAT on home energy supplies, which of course the Conservative Party de-zero-rated in the first place and no one thought more about (even GB only wanted to reduce the rate) until Michael Gove two weeks ago suggested re-zero-rating; the tampon tax; and droite de suite.
Was it really worth bringing the whole house down for that?
But that was pre-EU Ref's argument.
Onwards and upwards. With Boris.
Still banging on about this Topping and still wrong. Dave got nothing. It was business as usual for the EU and we are far better off out of it.
It's his right to vote against it. Parliament is sovereign.
He can vote against whatever he likes. It's not going to stop a PM hitting the Article 50 button - Parliament is utterly irrelevant there.
Not so fast:
Any prime minister will need parliamentary approval to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and initiate the UK’s exit from the European Union, according to a report by constitutional lawyers. [Guardian]
The only extremely slim chance we have is the government never quite getting round to invoking Article 50. That needs things to g wrong very, very quickly and enough regrexiters concluding by pretending not to notice.
I see the Remainers are still on Anger and Denial.
It could be worse, lads, you could be living in an EU country and waiting for the sword of Damocles to finally descend.
Nah. We were a sovereign nation then and are a sovereign nation now. Remainers never lacked confidence in our country, or our own primacy.
All we are doing is pointing out the bleedin' obvious that 89.757% of claims made by Brexiteers were and are sheer unadulterated bullshit. And illogical sheer unadulterated bullshit at that.
and yet it was more convincing than Remain it seems.
why was that ?
"Breaking point" poster, people lap that shit up. 330,000 immigration number after Dave pledged to get it down to 10s of thousands. Gov't always describes large immigration numbers as "disappointing", so there was always a cognitive dissonance there. And the GBP is a sucker for any argument involving the NHS.
Comments
One of Lisbon's provisions (I was reading up trying to find out the diplomacy around the creation of article 50, which I didn't find) was for easy removal and addition of overseas territories into the union.
twitter.com/lucianaberger/status/747418809363992576/photo/1
Shares Down.
Con leadership nominations close by Thursday.
Labour in shambles.
Start there, it probably cost him his job
- No need to adopt the Euro
- Not liable for Eurozone bailouts
- No need to join Schengen
- Reduced membership fee
- Explicit opt-out from ever-closer union.
- Partial opt-outs on benefits for EU citizens
- Various other opt-outs on social, justice and residency directives
That's undeniably not 'Full Membership'. I think it's pretty reasonable to call it Associate Membership.
Canadians do not require passports to enter the US, but they're not allowed to just cross the border and get a job in the nearest diner.
He gambled everything on losing, and it turns out he has.
The situation would be much the same as when immigration controls were introduced on Commonwealth citizens in 1962. Irish nationals did not lose the right to settle here.
1 Point for people who are citizens of EU states
0 Points for anyone else
You require 1 point to get an NI number and work in the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07h2vc6#play
What a nitwit.
"If they get their way the Labour Party will become a cult rather than a political party. They might still win Knowsley though."
They might but ... "Knowsley, which neighbours St Helens, had 36,558 people voting to leave (51.6%)."
I haven't checked Bootle though.
Anyone else who says anything beastly about Brexit 'expert' don't touch with a bargepole.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/john-oliver-takes-demand-brexit-do-over-calls-boris-johnson-shaved-orangutan-owen-wilsons-1567621
Its no wonder you guys lost if that is the best you can come up with
Found this graphic useful in seeing just how many overlapping relationships exist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg
'Wrong then, wrong now', as you might say...
The big mistake was EU enlargement.
sì grazie
It could be worse, lads, you could be living in an EU country and waiting for the sword of Damocles to finally descend.
Oh, and I didn't 'lose' because I wasn't on either side. But you lot who were on the Leave side failed to persuade me, for reasons which are now unfolding in real-time before our eyes.
It was also codified in the deal with no ever closer union, no discrimination eurozone vs non-eurozone, no banking union.
We already had associate membership, Dave got some of that formalised.
It wasn't broken. There was immigration, and there was some nebulous concept of sovereignty whereby Andrea Leadsom felt it was an imposition tantamount to invasion for us to write standardised kettle specifications into our own regulatory framework.
There was also VAT on home energy supplies, which of course the Conservative Party de-zero-rated in the first place and no one thought more about (even GB only wanted to reduce the rate) until Michael Gove two weeks ago suggested re-zero-rating; the tampon tax; and droite de suite.
Was it really worth bringing the whole house down for that?
But that was pre-EU Ref's argument.
Onwards and upwards. With Boris.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/44b822a8-3ade-11e6-9b2f-94f8ea8bb6c5
I am curious whether any of the serious Leavers on here have any different thoughts now about the geopolitical consequences, in particular the likelihood of the UK splitting up which most of them were trying to downplay before the vote.
that;s a bit of one sided analysis imo
nobody forced Cameron to call a referendum. He was sitting pretty in 2015 master of all he surveyed and could safely have ignore the headbangers
he lost the referendum because he and his colleagues had just forgotten why they were elected and the voters kicked them. The headbangers are more of a sympton of a political class that thinks it knows best and never listens. It's why it's an international phenomenon and not just a UK one.
maybe when the politicians ditch the "theyve nowhere else to go" mantra and start respecting their electorates we'll make better progress.
Don't worry. Acceptance will come after six months of paralyzing depression.
All we are doing is pointing out the bleedin' obvious that 89.757% of claims made by Brexiteers were and are sheer unadulterated bullshit. And illogical sheer unadulterated bullshit at that.
Mr. Borough, indeed, Parliament is sovereign and it would be entirely legal for the Commons to either vote against the referendum result or collectively decide to ignore it.
However, that would replace the current collection of crises with a new one.
Crisis consolidation, as it were.
why was that ?
The core of the EU will unify. It has to or the Eurozone will eventually tear itself apart.
Alternatively they will not unify and they will tear themselves apart. Given the suffering this will cause to the populations of the Eurozone I am very much in favour of the former solution as a least worst solution. But it would be better if they had never embarked on this course in the first place.
Now all we need is for Boris to 'deal with the consequences.'
Just my take though.
Can Labour beat 2nd Sept ?
The last time the Sun backed a loser in a British GE or referendum was in 1974. Sounds to me like the right path to take. Not to ignore it but to say "Thanks for the advice, but on consideration we are deciding to instruct the government to keep Britain in the EU." The question is how to package it. They need some changed circumstance or other.
Perhaps someone could show Boris where his sword is?
Any prime minister will need parliamentary approval to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and initiate the UK’s exit from the European Union, according to a report by constitutional lawyers. [Guardian]
330,000 immigration number after Dave pledged to get it down to 10s of thousands. Gov't always describes large immigration numbers as "disappointing", so there was always a cognitive dissonance there.
And the GBP is a sucker for any argument involving the NHS.