They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
That sounds like the start of a song. But it obviously can't have a tune or meter as both are capitalist bourgeois constructs that we should never ever use.
Old Maodonnell had a farm. But that was far too bourgeois for him, so he collectivised it with innumerable other farms. This meant they could sit around talking high matters of politics all day and throwing stones at the sparrows, as a result of which the crops failed and they all starved.
Ee-I EE-I o.
Isn't that Mugabe not Maodonnell?
Mugabe didn't collectivise, he went on a land grab. I was thinking of Mao's disastrous collectivisation drive in the 1950s, which coupled with his anti-pest (sparrowcide) campaign and an unfortunate drought led to the deaths of around 60 million people.
But Dr Foxinsoxuk absolutely owned me on the lyrics front!
Mugabe basically did what the IRA did in the Irish war of independence when all the country houses were burned and their land redistributed to their tenants.
Hardly surprising as he was educated by Irish Jesuits who were rather proud of what had happened.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
Given the first batch of Hilary wikileaks data was absolutely plastered in Cyrillic metadata and edited links then pretty easily?
What happens if enough Tories vote against or rebel so that the GRB is defeated in the Commons?
That won't happen. It'll be the most robust whip in post war history and many opposition MP's will support it. If Brexit has gone tits up enough by then to prompt a mass rebellion the bill won't be presented or progressed further. The commitment is just to include it in the next Queen Speech. That offers enormous flexibility over when to actually introduce it. And bills can be caried over into the next session.
It's amazing how WikiLeaks only leaks things about the US, and then only *certain* people in the US.
It's almost as though they're not the great warrior for freedom and truth that they think they are ...
They leaked a bunch of Syria e-mails but accidentally left out one were Syrian officials discuss with a Russian bank moving vast quantities of cash out of the coubtry despite having all the other emails from that official on that day.
Amazing that.
I'm very angry with WikiLeaks and the Guardian - they've put a member of my family in somewhat of a difficult position.
Rusbridger and Leigh ought to be in jail over the 'accidental' publication of the password.
Yes, those who published the password should be held accountable. Those who had the files made a good effort to run them through a journalistic process so as not to put anyone at risk. That those journalists then published the master password to the data dump is what actually exposed people.
It's interesting that a few years ago the Left and the Guardian were in love with Assange and Wikileaks. Not so much these days.
@hugorifkind: The Great Repeal Bill is nonsense. It just says we'll do what we've already decided to do, eventually, one we've figured out how to do it.
Yes, its a dead cat - gives the impression of progress and decision making without actually requiring any. Osborne would be proud of the game playing.
Actually, no. We could have gone down the route of reviewing every piece of EU law in the next two years. This announcement has made it clear we aren't going to do that, instead EU law is simply to be transposed into UK law.
The other course of action (reviewing each eu law individually) would have been utterly impractical, there are tens of thousands of them and the intertwining is complex.
Any attempt to review them one by one in two years would have been a total disaster which would have put not inconsiderable doubt on brexit happening and needed a bill with tens of thousands of clauses which amenders would have a field day with.
Which is why the remainers were dearly hoping Mrs May would try and are now mourning their fox.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
Given the first batch of Hilary wikileaks data was absolutely plastered in Cyrillic metadata and edited links then pretty easily?
It's amazing how WikiLeaks only leaks things about the US, and then only *certain* people in the US.
It's almost as though they're not the great warrior for freedom and truth that they think they are ...
They leaked a bunch of Syria e-mails but accidentally left out one were Syrian officials discuss with a Russian bank moving vast quantities of cash out of the coubtry despite having all the other emails from that official on that day.
Amazing that.
I'm very angry with WikiLeaks and the Guardian - they've put a member of my family in somewhat of a difficult position.
Rusbridger and Leigh ought to be in jail over the 'accidental' publication of the password.
Yes, those who published the password should be held accountable. Those who had the files made a good effort to run them through a journalistic process so as not to put anyone at risk. That those journalists then published the master password to the data dump is what actually exposed people.
It's interesting that a few years ago the Left and the Guardian were in love with Assange and Wikileaks. Not so much these days.
How (& why) is it interesting?
It's the classic case of "my enemy's enemy is my friend." The Left and the Guardian hate the USA so assume that anybody seeking to undermine that country must be good.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
Ooh, that's well into conspiracy theory territory but it must be theoretically possible.
What is certain is that Hillary's response would be that the document is a fabrication, challenge those producing it to bring co-oberating evidence to the table and try to brush it off.
Genuine evidence that would sink her would have to involve communication with a named living individual, who could be interviewed about that communication. Maybe a retired General?
The other course of action (reviewing each eu law individually) would have been utterly impractical, there are tens of thousands of them and the intertwining is complex.
Any attempt to review them one by one in two years would have been a total disaster which would have put not inconsiderable doubt on brexit happening and needed a bill with tens of thousands of clauses which amenders would have a field day with.
Which is why the remainers were dearly hoping Mrs May would try and are now mourning their fox.
But all that work still needs to happen, it's just been delayed.
Or are you proposing that all EU regulation stays part of UK law for ever?
Take Back Control, by never unwinding any EU regs...
Why do you expect introducing the bill will coincide with invoking Article 50? What's the point in invoking Article 50 and then having the Commons, or indeed the Lords, vote the bill down?
Meanwhile, Trump has now physically mocked how Clinton stumbled and collapsed on 11 September owing to pneumonia:
He has also insulted those who suffer from super obesity, saying that the hacking into the DNC's computer, rather than being the work of Russian intelligence, might have been done by someone who weighs 400 pounds:
He is the absolute caricature of everything that neopuritan liberal do gooder sanctimonious politically correct types like Clintonn loathe with every fibre of their being.
Which is why it will be so hilarious and good for democracy if he won. The people of the USA will have unequivocally given the finger to diversity and equality mongering safe spacing phobiaising multi culti taking offence hunting political correctness.
Whether he will actually be any good is something to worry about later. At least he wont be poking the bear (putin) with a stick, which makes us all safer.
OK Paul, I get that you hate sanctimonious do gooder liberal stuff etc. But in reality much of that stuff is what I call simple respect for fellow human beings. I'm really interested in where you draw the line? What is the difference between sanctimonious do goodery and respect for fellow humans? Where does casual discrimination become unacceptable? Because the likes of Trump are taking us towards those boundaries and people like you are cheering it.
Is it fire up the quattro, back to the 70s! Or fire up the gas ovens, back to the 40s? Because it seems to me that once you're on it it's a mightily slippery slope.
That behaviour of ordinary people in the UK in the 70s is aligned with the behaviour of Himmler and co. in the 40s (which is a common progressive argument) is why an asshole like Trump is in the last two for the presidency.
Respect for human beings is not calling them things like n*****s. Few disagree with that. But the progressives go to far.
They treat racist name calling like bank robbery. Anti social behaviour is treated like heresy in the middie ages. Meanwhile other far more serious crimes that dont tick the right progressive boxes...cough Rotherham...cough..are low priority.
They also react in the same way over basically nothing, such as the monstering of Andy Gray for referring to a player as coloured because he did not realise that this was no longer considered the correct word by progressives.
Why do you expect introducing the bill will coincide with invoking Article 50? What's the point in invoking Article 50 and then having the Commons, or indeed the Lords, vote the bill down?
Meanwhile, Trump has now physically mocked how Clinton stumbled and collapsed on 11 September owing to pneumonia:
He has also insulted those who suffer from super obesity, saying that the hacking into the DNC's computer, rather than being the work of Russian intelligence, might have been done by someone who weighs 400 pounds:
Does anyone who isn't a gun nut headbanger have a good reason to support this guy? C'mon, Trump surrogates with any sense of what makes and doesn't make a decent human being, withdraw your backing in an organised way and call for this casino-bankrupting, tax-avoiding, embargo-breaking billionaire to resign his candidacy.
He is the absolute caricature of everything that neopuritan liberal do gooder sanctimonious politically correct types like Clintonn loathe with every fibre of their being.
Which is why it will be so hilarious and good for democracy if he won. The people of the USA will have unequivocally given the finger to diversity and equality mongering safe spacing phobiaising multi culti taking offence hunting political correctness.
Whether he will actually be any good is something to worry about later. At least he wont be poking the bear (putin) with a stick, which makes us all safer.
OK Paul, I get that you hate sanctimonious do gooder liberal stuff etc. But in reality much of that stuff is what I call simple respect for fellow human beings. I'm really interested in where you draw the line? What is the difference between sanctimonious do goodery and respect for fellow humans? Where does casual discrimination become unacceptable? Because the likes of Trump are taking us towards those boundaries and people like you are cheering it.
Is it fire up the quattro, back to the 70s! Or fire up the gas ovens, back to the 40s? Because it seems to me that once you're on it it's a mightily slippery slope.
What's the opposite of do-gooder, liberal? Do-badder, illiberal. Is that better? The likely results of a Trump presidency, including an unrestrained Putin's Russia, may not be 'hilarious' at all.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
That sounds like the start of a song. But it obviously can't have a tune or meter as both are capitalist bourgeois constructs that we should never ever use.
Old Maodonnell had a farm. But that was far too bourgeois for him, so he collectivised it with innumerable other farms. This meant they could sit around talking high matters of politics all day and throwing stones at the sparrows, as a result of which the crops failed and they all starved.
Ee-I EE-I o.
Isn't that Mugabe not Maodonnell?
Mugabe didn't collectivise, he went on a land grab. I was thinking of Mao's disastrous collectivisation drive in the 1950s, which coupled with his anti-pest (sparrowcide) campaign and an unfortunate drought led to the deaths of around 60 million people.
But Dr Foxinsoxuk absolutely owned me on the lyrics front!
Mugabe basically did what the IRA did in the Irish war of independence when all the country houses were burned and their land redistributed to their tenants.
Hardly surprising as he was educated by Irish Jesuits who were rather proud of what had happened.
FWIW the nationalists appreciated the good faith with which my family has acted for the 750 years we'd lived in Ireland.
They have us 24 hours notice before they burnt our homes down.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
No one, not even the Dems, has claimed any of the DNC e-mail leaks released so far are anything but true.
@hugorifkind: The Great Repeal Bill is nonsense. It just says we'll do what we've already decided to do, eventually, one we've figured out how to do it.
Yes, its a dead cat - gives the impression of progress and decision making without actually requiring any. Osborne would be proud of the game playing.
Actually, no. We could have gone down the route of reviewing every piece of EU law in the next two years. This announcement has made it clear we aren't going to do that, instead EU law is simply to be transposed into UK law.
I thought that such a move - simply copy and paste EU law into UK law - had already been mentioned as the only way to deal with the situation, a while back?
The alternative would be to write a new law, superseding each piece of EU law, one by one. That would probably take decades of parliamentary time. If there were mistakes or gaps... well, welcome to a legal minefield as to what the actual legal situation would be.
The GRB ensures legal consistency - The applicable EU law at the moment of passage of the GRB (or other date specified) is the UK law going forward. So, on Brexit, no legal confusion can occur.
Why do you expect introducing the bill will coincide with invoking Article 50? What's the point in invoking Article 50 and then having the Commons, or indeed the Lords, vote the bill down?
Meanwhile, Trump has now physically mocked how Clinton stumbled and collapsed on 11 September owing to pneumonia:
He has also insulted those who suffer from super obesity, saying that the hacking into the DNC's computer, rather than being the work of Russian intelligence, might have been done by someone who weighs 400 pounds:
Does anyone who isn't a gun nut headbanger have a good reason to support this guy? C'mon, Trump surrogates with any sense of what makes and doesn't make a decent human being, withdraw your backing in an organised way and call for this casino-bankrupting, tax-avoiding, embargo-breaking billionaire to resign his candidacy.
He is the absolute caricature of everything that neopuritan liberal do gooder sanctimonious politically correct types like Clintonn loathe with every fibre of their being.
Which is why it will be so hilarious and good for democracy if he won. The people of the USA will have unequivocally given the finger to diversity and equality mongering safe spacing phobiaising multi culti taking offence hunting political correctness.
Whether he will actually be any good is something to worry about later. At least he wont be poking the bear (putin) with a stick, which makes us all safer.
OK Paul, I get that you hate sanctimonious do gooder liberal stuff etc. But in reality much of that stuff is what I call simple respect for fellow human beings. I'm really interested in where you draw the line? What is the difference between sanctimonious do goodery and respect for fellow humans? Where does casual discrimination become unacceptable? Because the likes of Trump are taking us towards those boundaries and people like you are cheering it.
Is it fire up the quattro, back to the 70s! Or fire up the gas ovens, back to the 40s? Because it seems to me that once you're on it it's a mightily slippery slope.
That behaviour of ordinary people in the UK in the 70s is aligned with the behaviour of Himmler and co. in the 40s (which is a common progressive argument) is why an asshole like Trump is in the last two for the presidency.
I see. So routine chimp chants at football are OK. Those golden days?
The other course of action (reviewing each eu law individually) would have been utterly impractical, there are tens of thousands of them and the intertwining is complex.
Any attempt to review them one by one in two years would have been a total disaster which would have put not inconsiderable doubt on brexit happening and needed a bill with tens of thousands of clauses which amenders would have a field day with.
Which is why the remainers were dearly hoping Mrs May would try and are now mourning their fox.
But all that work still needs to happen, it's just been delayed.
Or are you proposing that all EU regulation stays part of UK law for ever?
Take Back Control, by never unwinding any EU regs...
It means that Parliament can decide to repeal bits as and when it pleases. I am sure quite a few will actually remain on the statute books. There is no need to get the review process done in two years, is there?
What happens if enough Tories vote against or rebel so that the GRB is defeated in the Commons?
Who knows, but it seems very unlikely. The hardliners seem to support the move.
It's not the Commons we have to be concerned about. It's the Lords.
This legislation was not in the Tory manifesto, so it follows that the pro-EU group in the upper house, if large enough, would not be in defiance of the Salisbury Doctrine were it to decide to throw it out. We should also bear in mind that both Labour and Lib Dem peers, for different reasons, might wish to create circumstances that force an early election. Looks like we could be in for a General Election early next year, regardless of what the Prime Minister has previously said.
The other course of action (reviewing each eu law individually) would have been utterly impractical, there are tens of thousands of them and the intertwining is complex.
Any attempt to review them one by one in two years would have been a total disaster which would have put not inconsiderable doubt on brexit happening and needed a bill with tens of thousands of clauses which amenders would have a field day with.
Which is why the remainers were dearly hoping Mrs May would try and are now mourning their fox.
But all that work still needs to happen, it's just been delayed.
Or are you proposing that all EU regulation stays part of UK law for ever?
Take Back Control, by never unwinding any EU regs...
When it comes to detailed regulations the status quo is usually fine for now. If Parliament sees for to review them in the coyrse they can do, but there is no particular urgency. But we will have the right to make changes as and when we are fit.
Why do you expect introducing the bill will coincide with invoking Article 50? What's the point in invoking Article 50 and then having the Commons, or indeed the Lords, vote the bill down?
Meanwhile, Trump has now physically mocked how Clinton stumbled and collapsed on 11 September owing to pneumonia:
He has also insulted those who suffer from super obesity, saying that the hacking into the DNC's computer, rather than being the work of Russian intelligence, might have been done by someone who weighs 400 pounds:
Does anyone who isn't a gun nut headbanger have a good reason to support this guy? C'mon, Trump surrogates with any sense of what makes and doesn't make a decent human being, withdraw your backing in an organised way and call for this casino-bankrupting, tax-avoiding, embargo-breaking billionaire to resign his candidacy.
anyone with any decency stopped supported him months ago. Its just scumbags now. Hopefully they are limited in number!
With all due respect - that is the sort of 'thinking' that won the referendum for REMAIN.
I think he's an obnoxious git - but he's tapped into the fears and concerns of those left behind by globalisation - and demonising them won't change their minds.
For once we agree , this 619 is obviously an imbecile.
That sounds like the start of a song. But it obviously can't have a tune or meter as both are capitalist bourgeois constructs that we should never ever use.
Old Maodonnell had a farm. But that was far too bourgeois for him, so he collectivised it with innumerable other farms. This meant they could sit around talking high matters of politics all day and throwing stones at the sparrows, as a result of which the crops failed and they all starved.
Ee-I EE-I o.
Isn't that Mugabe not Maodonnell?
Mugabe didn't collectivise, he went on a land grab. I was thinking of Mao's disastrous collectivisation drive in the 1950s, which coupled with his anti-pest (sparrowcide) campaign and an unfortunate drought led to the deaths of around 60 million people.
But Dr Foxinsoxuk absolutely owned me on the lyrics front!
Mugabe basically did what the IRA did in the Irish war of independence when all the country houses were burned and their land redistributed to their tenants.
Hardly surprising as he was educated by Irish Jesuits who were rather proud of what had happened.
Actually by 1920 something like 80% of agricultural land in Ireland was already in the ownership of small Farmers as a result of the Irish land acts, particularly the 1885 act. By the 1920's the Protestant Ascendancy was largely history already.
In large part this happened because of the long agricultural depression of late Victorian Britain making large agricultural estates unprofitable as much as desire to alleviate Irsh nationalism.
A free market with the Old Commonwealth would have pretty similar effect on post Brexit Britain. A lot of land would become idle. We could turn this to our advantage, as we would need fewer East European farm Labourers, and a lot of disused farms could be used for new housing.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
Given the first batch of Hilary wikileaks data was absolutely plastered in Cyrillic metadata and edited links then pretty easily?
That sounds like the start of a song. But it obviously can't have a tune or meter as both are capitalist bourgeois constructs that we should never ever use.
Old Maodonnell had a farm. But that was far too bourgeois for him, so he collectivised it with innumerable other farms. This meant they could sit around talking high matters of politics all day and throwing stones at the sparrows, as a result of which the crops failed and they all starved.
Ee-I EE-I o.
Isn't that Mugabe not Maodonnell?
Mugabe didn't collectivise, he went on a land grab. I was thinking of Mao's disastrous collectivisation drive in the 1950s, which coupled with his anti-pest (sparrowcide) campaign and an unfortunate drought led to the deaths of around 60 million people.
But Dr Foxinsoxuk absolutely owned me on the lyrics front!
Mugabe basically did what the IRA did in the Irish war of independence when all the country houses were burned and their land redistributed to their tenants.
Hardly surprising as he was educated by Irish Jesuits who were rather proud of what had happened.
FWIW the nationalists appreciated the good faith with which my family has acted for the 750 years we'd lived in Ireland.
They have us 24 hours notice before they burnt our homes down.
Yes what happened in Zimbabwe to the "Farmers" who in reality were untitled Lords of the Manor was very similar
Why do you expect introducing the bill will coincide with invoking Article 50? What's the point in invoking Article 50 and then having the Commons, or indeed the Lords, vote the bill down?
Meanwhile, Trump has now physically mocked how Clinton stumbled and collapsed on 11 September owing to pneumonia:
He has also insulted those who suffer from super obesity, saying that the hacking into the DNC's computer, rather than being the work of Russian intelligence, might have been done by someone who weighs 400 pounds:
Does anyone who isn't a gun nut headbanger have a good reason to support this guy? C'mon, Trump surrogates with any sense of what makes and doesn't make a decent human being, withdraw your backing in an organised way and call for this casino-bankrupting, tax-avoiding, embargo-breaking billionaire to resign his candidacy.
anyone with any decency stopped supported him months ago. Its just scumbags now. Hopefully they are limited in number!
With all due respect - that is the sort of 'thinking' that won the referendum for REMAIN.
I think he's an obnoxious git - but he's tapped into the fears and concerns of those left behind by globalisation - and demonising them won't change their minds.
For once we agree , this 619 is obviously an imbecile.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
Given the first batch of Hilary wikileaks data was absolutely plastered in Cyrillic metadata and edited links then pretty easily?
I tell yer, Clinton's "private" e-mails are going to be released by these same hackers just before the election..... You know, the ones she tried so hard to delete. Which will be fun.
I wonder if the FBI will consider them admissible?
My F1 bets have just gone up in smoke. Quite literally.
I think it's time for Hamilton to lay down the law at Mercedes. This season has been simply awful for his reliability, they've gifted the title to Rosberg.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
Given the first batch of Hilary wikileaks data was absolutely plastered in Cyrillic metadata and edited links then pretty easily?
I tell yer, Clinton's "private" e-mails are going to be released by these same hackers just before the election..... You know, the ones she tried so hard to delete. Which will be fun.
I wonder if the FBI will consider them admissible?
How will the rednecks like Putin interfering in their election?
Why do you expect introducing the bill will coincide with invoking Article 50? What's the point in invoking Article 50 and then having the Commons, or indeed the Lords, vote the bill down?
Meanwhile, Trump has now physically mocked how Clinton stumbled and collapsed on 11 September owing to pneumonia:
He has also insulted those who suffer from super obesity, saying that the hacking into the DNC's computer, rather than being the work of Russian intelligence, might have been done by someone who weighs 400 pounds:
Does anyone who isn't a gun nut headbanger have a good reason to support this guy? C'mon, Trump surrogates with any sense of what makes and doesn't make a decent human being, withdraw your backing in an organised way and call for this casino-bankrupting, tax-avoiding, embargo-breaking billionaire to resign his candidacy.
Whether he will actually be any good is something to worry about later. At least he wont be poking the bear (putin) with a stick, which makes us all safer.
OK Paul, I get that you hate sanctimonious do gooder liberal stuff etc. But in reality much of that stuff is what I call simple respect for fellow human beings. I'm really interested in where you draw the line? What is the difference between sanctimonious do goodery and respect for fellow humans? Where does casual discrimination become unacceptable? Because the likes of Trump are taking us towards those boundaries and people like you are cheering it.
Is it fire up the quattro, back to the 70s! Or fire up the gas ovens, back to the 40s? Because it seems to me that once you're on it it's a mightily slippery slope.
That behaviour of ordinary people in the UK in the 70s is aligned with the behaviour of Himmler and co. in the 40s (which is a common progressive argument) is why an asshole like Trump is in the last two for the presidency.
I see. So routine chimp chants at football are OK. Those golden days?
CCTV enabling the perpetratorsto be identified is why that stopped (along with the general violence which progressives seem to think a lesser evil than name calling). Such offensive name calling was aslways behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace long before the word racism had ever been coined, but without CCTV virtually impossible to identify in a large crowd.
What sort of fucking idiot loses a billion dollars running casinos???
I knew a bloke who lost money in betting shops when they were legalised here. You will be surprised to learn the shops suddenly and mysteriously became profitable once he'd sold his stake to the co-owner for peanuts.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
Given the first batch of Hilary wikileaks data was absolutely plastered in Cyrillic metadata and edited links then pretty easily?
I tell yer, Clinton's "private" e-mails are going to be released by these same hackers just before the election..... You know, the ones she tried so hard to delete. Which will be fun.
I wonder if the FBI will consider them admissible?
How will the rednecks like Putin interfering in their election?
It could easily backfire.
Not on the same scale as the Guardian's try at interference, surely?
Matthew Paris complaining about democracy in Hungary.
There's going to be lots of people complaining about democracy in Hungary in the next 48 hours. How dare the people vote against the EU, and their liberal orthodoxy of unlimited immigration from the world's war zones.
"The son of the Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti attends one of Britain’s top private schools where Nigel Farage was once a pupil.
The boy goes to Dulwich College in southeast London, which has about 1,500 pupils.
Boys wishing to enter the school, where annual fees start at more than £18,000 for day pupils and £37,000 for boarders, have to sit a highly competitive entrance exam.
Shami Chakrabarti is hotly tipped to be appointed shadow attorney-general by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn."
What happens if enough Tories vote against or rebel so that the GRB is defeated in the Commons?
Who knows, but it seems very unlikely. The hardliners seem to support the move.
It's not the Commons we have to be concerned about. It's the Lords.
This legislation was not in the Tory manifesto, so it follows that the pro-EU group in the upper house, if large enough, would not be in defiance of the Salisbury Doctrine were it to decide to throw it out. We should also bear in mind that both Labour and Lib Dem peers, for different reasons, might wish to create circumstances that force an early election. Looks like we could be in for a General Election early next year, regardless of what the Prime Minister has previously said.
May will have to abolish the Lords if they block a referendum decision.
Ram the Lords with hundreds of new peers, pass the EU bill, then pass a Lords abolition bill.
Why the Lords think they have the right to both block a referendum decision or force a general election is beyond me. They are meant to be a revising chamber.
Anyway, if they want a general election, maybe May should call them on that and hold one. Tory majority of 100. Manifesto to include exiting the EU and abolition of the Lords. Job done.
My F1 bets have just gone up in smoke. Quite literally.
I think it's time for Hamilton to lay down the law at Mercedes. This season has been simply awful for his reliability, they've gifted the title to Rosberg.
Indeed. Though I think Rosberg's penalty was slightly harsh.
Poor Hammy. He did everything right this weekend. It must hurt.
Still, the final races of the BTCC championship starts at midday from sunny Kent. 21 points separate the top five drivers, with three races to go. Time to watch some *real* racing ...
My memory's slightly dodgy, but didn't someone on here suggest a GRB a way forward before the referendum?
Can anyone remember who it was?
A GRB was always the favoured way for quickly dealing with the interweaved EU and UK law. I think Hannan suggested it years ago. In the grand scheme of things its irrelevant to our relationship with the EU and says nothing about the likelihood of hard or soft Brexit.
It's a good dead cat however and will keep the bent banana and incandescent light bulb frothers distracted.
I think that's about right. As a Remainer who wants the settlement to change as little as possible, I'm content with a starting point that we adopt Brussels law wholesale, and then consider at our leisure whether there's anything that we really want to change, with zero commitment to changing anything specific. It's a bit surprising that Leavers are chuffed, but I suppose they feel that any movement is better than nothing and that it's nice to have the option to change stuff even if we don't actually do it - like the Scottish devolution option to raise income tax.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
Given the first batch of Hilary wikileaks data was absolutely plastered in Cyrillic metadata and edited links then pretty easily?
I tell yer, Clinton's "private" e-mails are going to be released by these same hackers just before the election..... You know, the ones she tried so hard to delete. Which will be fun.
I wonder if the FBI will consider them admissible?
How will the rednecks like Putin interfering in their election?
It could easily backfire.
The content will over-ride the source. You think 24 hour media is going to ignore what they say? The very fact the Russians had them - and Clinton thereby UNQUESTIONABLY put national security at risk will kill her stone dead.
As with much else at this time of year the cold light of day burns away the fog to reveal not much. When I opined last night this was just about the repeal of the ECA, a couple of the May sycophants jumped on me and told me how much more important and revolutionary this was.
No, it's not and I realise for some on here if May read extracts from the Maidenhead phone book she should be praised as the greatest orator since Cicero, those of us with critical faculties remaining can see this amount as a necessary first step but no more. I recall hearing that arch left winger Dominc Raab saying in the days after the referendum this was the first necessary legal step so that's all it is.
We have "senior Conservatives" which translates as relics from the Thatcher years, putting up "blueprints" and, as with the Poll Tax and we all know how well that turned out, it would be wise for the Prime Mnister to treat the clamour and baying from activists at Conference with the same disdain as Arthur Balfour.
"The son of the Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti attends one of Britain’s top private schools where Nigel Farage was once a pupil.
The boy goes to Dulwich College in southeast London, which has about 1,500 pupils.
Boys wishing to enter the school, where annual fees start at more than £18,000 for day pupils and £37,000 for boarders, have to sit a highly competitive entrance exam.
Shami Chakrabarti is hotly tipped to be appointed shadow attorney-general by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn."
Given the current front bench in the Labour party, sending her son to a bog standard comprehensive is probably banned. Mind you she might get in trouble because Dulwich isn't posh enough.
Why do you expect introducing the bill will coincide with invoking Article 50? What's the point in invoking Article 50 and then having the Commons, or indeed the Lords, vote the bill down?
Meanwhile, Trump has now physically mocked how Clinton stumbled and collapsed on 11 September owing to pneumonia:
He has also insulted those who suffer from super obesity, saying that the hacking into the DNC's computer, rather than being the work of Russian intelligence, might have been done by someone who weighs 400 pounds:
Does anyone who isn't a gun nut headbanger have a good reason to support this guy? C'mon, Trump surrogates with any sense of what makes and doesn't make a decent human being, withdraw your backing in an organised way and call for this casino-bankrupting, tax-avoiding, embargo-breaking billionaire to resign his candidacy.
Which is why it will be so hilarious and good for democracy if he won. The people of the USA will have unequivocally given the finger to diversity and equality mongering safe spacing phobiaising multi culti taking offence hunting political correctness.
Whether he will actually be any good is something to worry about later. At least he wont be poking the bear (putin) with a stick, which makes us all safer.
OK Paul, I get that you hate sanctimonious do gooder liberal stuff etc. .
That behaviour of ordinary people in the UK in the 70s is aligned with the behaviour of Himmler and co. in the 40s (which is a common progressive argument) is why an asshole like Trump is in the last two for the presidency.
I see. So routine chimp chants at football are OK. Those golden days?
CCTV enabling the perpetrators is why that stopped. It was behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace long before the word racism had ever been coined, but without CCTV virtually impossible to identify in a large crowd.
Mostly it stopped because of all seater stadiums. It was not easy identifying the culprits on terracing, and indeed the casual violence was considered more of a problem than language.
Nothing wrong with Britain in the 70's was there? Bring back the Black and White Minstrels and "Curry and Chips"
What sort of fucking idiot loses a billion dollars running casinos???
I knew a bloke who lost money in betting shops when they were legalised here. You will be surprised to learn the shops suddenly and mysteriously became profitable once he'd sold his stake to the co-owner for peanuts.
Yup - the definition of a loss can be er..... interesting. You'd be surprised how many blockbuster, top of the chart Hollywood films made a loss.
As with much else at this time of year the cold light of day burns away the fog to reveal not much. When I opined last night this was just about the repeal of the ECA, a couple of the May sycophants jumped on me and told me how much more important and revolutionary this was.
No, it's not and I realise for some on here if May read extracts from the Maidenhead phone book she should be praised as the greatest orator since Cicero, those of us with critical faculties remaining can see this amount as a necessary first step but no more. I recall hearing that arch left winger Dominc Raab saying in the days after the referendum this was the first necessary legal step so that's all it is.
We have "senior Conservatives" which translates as relics from the Thatcher years, putting up "blueprints" and, as with the Poll Tax and we all know how well that turned out, it would be wise for the Prime Mnister to treat the clamour and baying from activists at Conference with the same disdain as Arthur Balfour.
Yes, it is the first step to enable Brexit. That's why people are positive about it. There will be no fudge.
@tnewtondunn: Will you call an election if you can't get the Great Repeal Bill thru parliament, #Marr asks PM? She ducks, keeping the option v much open.
They'd better actually have a smoking gun this time, after the number of times they've said they had something on Hillary. One assumes the email stuff isn't affecting her any more; evidence that she directly lied at the Benghazi hearings is about all I can think of that would sink her now.
I don't think that would make much difference either. Most people who are voting against her and even quite a few voting for her are already assuming she did.
Something new and unambiguously criminal might impact the race, but it seems unlikely they have anything like that. While she's not exactly Einstein, she's not stupid and she knows the difference between dishonesty and criminality.
Edit - the other thing I suppose might make a difference is if they have information that she is hiding a life-threatening illness. That would leave all those who hate her free to vote for in effect President Kaine. Assange of course wouldn't realise that, but it might deliver a Dem landslide!
Yes, to materially affect Hillary now it would have to be evidence of a very direct lie, something that she explicitly denied at the hearings that made her complicit in the attack.
As you suggest, evidence that she's got months to live might ironically help her out, if people think she'll quickly make way for Kaine.
I'm not 100% up on WikiLeaks. How easy would it be for Assange et al to invent data? After all, they know well the formats of the data used and even the key phraseology of the people involved.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
No one, not even the Dems, has claimed any of the DNC e-mail leaks released so far are anything but true.
They only need to do it once, when it will cause the most trouble.
My F1 bets have just gone up in smoke. Quite literally.
I think it's time for Hamilton to lay down the law at Mercedes. This season has been simply awful for his reliability, they've gifted the title to Rosberg.
Indeed. Though I think Rosberg's penalty was slightly harsh.
Poor Hammy. He did everything right this weekend. It must hurt.
Still, the final races of the BTCC championship starts at midday from sunny Kent. 21 points separate the top five drivers, with three races to go. Time to watch some *real* racing ...
Rosberg's penalty means nothing as he gets to keep the podium place. Lewis was a class act all weekend, was miles clear of the field. Commentator's Curse from Martin Brundle saying how wonderful that Mercedes car was, about three laps before the engine blew up!
Thanks for the heads-up on the BTCC, Mrs Sandpit just lost control of the TV for the afternoon!
@tnewtondunn: Will you call an election if you can't get the Great Repeal Bill thru parliament, #Marr asks PM? She ducks, keeping the option v much open.
What sort of fucking idiot loses a billion dollars running casinos???
I knew a bloke who lost money in betting shops when they were legalised here. You will be surprised to learn the shops suddenly and mysteriously became profitable once he'd sold his stake to the co-owner for peanuts.
Yup - the definition of a loss can be er..... interesting. You'd be surprised how many blockbuster, top of the chart Hollywood films made a loss.
Percentage of net is what they offer to rubes....
Yep, Hollywood Accounting. I think most Brits don't quite get the American attitude to taxes. Outside the Hillary fans, most Americans will support Trump in minimising his tax bill. His prevarication on the issue doesn't help him though.
@tnewtondunn: Will you call an election if you can't get the Great Repeal Bill thru parliament, #Marr asks PM? She ducks, keeping the option v much open.
Matthew Paris complaining about democracy in Hungary.
There's going to be lots of people complaining about democracy in Hungary in the next 48 hours. How dare the people vote against the EU, and their liberal orthodoxy of unlimited immigration from the world's war zones.
One of the problems that our new upper 10,000 have is that their beliefs are essentially religious.
It used to be that opposing the sale of indulgences was rank heresy.
Now, suggesting limits on immigration is to be "deplorable".
Our lords and masters should get down on their knees and pray very hard that all they will create with their idiocy is Martin Luther. It rather looks like they are going to get the Black Company instead.
Asa Bennett #cpc16 protesters moved onto Labour- singing "There's only one Jeremy Corbyn" and "Owen Smith, always on TV/Owen Smith, who the hell is he?"
May is basically saying no end to the free movement of people.
Did she? She just said the UK government would decide what the rules are.
But she repeatedly avoided saying that there would be any restrictions and emphasised that the British government would decide as in that was going to make people happy.
May is basically saying no end to the free movement of people.
Did she? She just said the UK government would decide what the rules are.
But she repeatedly avoided saying that there would be any restrictions and emphasised that the British government would decide as in that was going to make people happy.
She also talked about the "controls that the British people wanted".
May is basically saying no end to the free movement of people.
Did she? She just said the UK government would decide what the rules are.
But she repeatedly avoided saying that there would be any restrictions and emphasised that the British government would decide as in that was going to make people happy.
She also talked about the "controls that the British people wanted".
The type of controls that don't change the number or type of people arriving?
How can the PM's security be put at risk by allowing free access to the pedestrian bridge behind her. Someone is prancing back and forward without any intervention. Poor from security and the police
May is basically saying no end to the free movement of people.
Did she? She just said the UK government would decide what the rules are.
But she repeatedly avoided saying that there would be any restrictions and emphasised that the British government would decide as in that was going to make people happy.
She also talked about the "controls that the British people wanted".
The type of controls that don't change the number or type of people arriving?
Those aren't the ones that the people wanted. You really have to contort her words to suggest she was saying there would be no end to free movement.
Yes, it is the first step to enable Brexit. That's why people are positive about it. There will be no fudge.
And as someone who voted LEAVE, fair enough. Clearly, had May sought to prevaricate on A50, she would have been driven from office by the Conservative Party. There is and was no serious question she wouldn't trigger A50 early in 2017. This is just a piece of red meat to throw at the pro-LEAVE rally in Birmingham this coming week.
Dissident pro-EU Conservatives will probably feel as welcome in Birmingham as anti-Corbyn Labour delegates last week in Liverpool.
We now need to see how Curly, Mo and Larry will run the A50 negotiations and, above all, where the lines are on Freedom of Movement and the Single Market and the degree to which the Conservatives will be able to unite behind any kind of negotiating position.
May is basically saying no end to the free movement of people.
Did she? She just said the UK government would decide what the rules are.
But she repeatedly avoided saying that there would be any restrictions and emphasised that the British government would decide as in that was going to make people happy.
She also talked about the "controls that the British people wanted".
The type of controls that don't change the number or type of people arriving?
Those aren't the ones that the people wanted. You really have to contort her words to suggest she was saying there would be no end to free movement.
May is basically saying no end to the free movement of people.
Did she? She just said the UK government would decide what the rules are.
But she repeatedly avoided saying that there would be any restrictions and emphasised that the British government would decide as in that was going to make people happy.
She also talked about the "controls that the British people wanted".
The type of controls that don't change the number or type of people arriving?
Those aren't the ones that the people wanted. You really have to contort her words to suggest she was saying there would be no end to free movement.
What restrictions was she proposing?
"there was a clear message from the British people that they wanted us to control the movement of people into the UK so we will deliver on that"
May is basically saying no end to the free movement of people.
Did she? She just said the UK government would decide what the rules are.
But she repeatedly avoided saying that there would be any restrictions and emphasised that the British government would decide as in that was going to make people happy.
She also talked about the "controls that the British people wanted".
She's going to make everybody queue for longer at airports, British people love queuing.
May is basically saying no end to the free movement of people.
Did she? She just said the UK government would decide what the rules are.
But she repeatedly avoided saying that there would be any restrictions and emphasised that the British government would decide as in that was going to make people happy.
She also talked about the "controls that the British people wanted".
The type of controls that don't change the number or type of people arriving?
Those aren't the ones that the people wanted. You really have to contort her words to suggest she was saying there would be no end to free movement.
What restrictions was she proposing?
"there was a clear message from the British people that they wanted us to control the movement of people into the UK so we will deliver on that"
And then despite lots of promoting and posssible examples from Marr she waffled, waffled, waffled on what that actually meant.
May is basically saying no end to the free movement of people.
Did she? She just said the UK government would decide what the rules are.
But she repeatedly avoided saying that there would be any restrictions and emphasised that the British government would decide as in that was going to make people happy.
The important point, is that it's for the British government to decide, and if the people don't like the British government they can kick them out at the next election.
Compare with, oh I dunno, somewhere like Hungary...
Comments
Hardly surprising as he was educated by Irish Jesuits who were rather proud of what had happened.
Then it would be the word of politicians versus Wikileaks' 'evidence'.
Any attempt to review them one by one in two years would have been a total disaster which would have put not inconsiderable doubt on brexit happening and needed a bill with tens of thousands of clauses which amenders would have a field day with.
Which is why the remainers were dearly hoping Mrs May would try and are now mourning their fox.
i imagine it will be more emails having a go at sanders. embarassing but whatever
What is certain is that Hillary's response would be that the document is a fabrication, challenge those producing it to bring co-oberating evidence to the table and try to brush it off.
Genuine evidence that would sink her would have to involve communication with a named living individual, who could be interviewed about that communication. Maybe a retired General?
Or are you proposing that all EU regulation stays part of UK law for ever?
Take Back Control, by never unwinding any EU regs...
Respect for human beings is not calling them things like n*****s. Few disagree with that. But the progressives go to far.
They treat racist name calling like bank robbery. Anti social behaviour is treated like heresy in the middie ages. Meanwhile other far more serious crimes that dont tick the right progressive boxes...cough Rotherham...cough..are low priority.
They also react in the same way over basically nothing, such as the monstering of Andy Gray for referring to a player as coloured because he did not realise that this was no longer considered the correct word by progressives.
The likely results of a Trump presidency, including an unrestrained Putin's Russia, may not be 'hilarious' at all.
They have us 24 hours notice before they burnt our homes down.
The alternative would be to write a new law, superseding each piece of EU law, one by one. That would probably take decades of parliamentary time. If there were mistakes or gaps... well, welcome to a legal minefield as to what the actual legal situation would be.
The GRB ensures legal consistency - The applicable EU law at the moment of passage of the GRB (or other date specified) is the UK law going forward. So, on Brexit, no legal confusion can occur.
The longer it takes to undo any particular regulation, the more opportunity for the headbangers to cry BETRAYAL!
This legislation was not in the Tory manifesto, so it follows that the pro-EU group in the upper house, if large enough, would not be in defiance of the Salisbury Doctrine were it to decide to throw it out. We should also bear in mind that both Labour and Lib Dem peers, for different reasons, might wish to create circumstances that force an early election. Looks like we could be in for a General Election early next year, regardless of what the Prime Minister has previously said.
NOOOOOOOOOOO!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Land_Acts?wprov=sfla1
In large part this happened because of the long agricultural depression of late Victorian Britain making large agricultural estates unprofitable as much as desire to alleviate Irsh nationalism.
A free market with the Old Commonwealth would have pretty similar effect on post Brexit Britain. A lot of land would become idle. We could turn this to our advantage, as we would need fewer East European farm Labourers, and a lot of disused farms could be used for new housing.
With that, I am off. Have a good morning!
I wonder if the FBI will consider them admissible?
It could easily backfire.
"The son of the Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti attends one of Britain’s top private schools where Nigel Farage was once a pupil.
The boy goes to Dulwich College in southeast London, which has about 1,500 pupils.
Boys wishing to enter the school, where annual fees start at more than £18,000 for day pupils and £37,000 for boarders, have to sit a highly competitive entrance exam.
Shami Chakrabarti is hotly tipped to be appointed shadow attorney-general by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyn-allys-son-at-top-public-school-lg00hp67m
Ram the Lords with hundreds of new peers, pass the EU bill, then pass a Lords abolition bill.
Why the Lords think they have the right to both block a referendum decision or force a general election is beyond me. They are meant to be a revising chamber.
Anyway, if they want a general election, maybe May should call them on that and hold one. Tory majority of 100. Manifesto to include exiting the EU and abolition of the Lords. Job done.
Poor Hammy. He did everything right this weekend. It must hurt.
Still, the final races of the BTCC championship starts at midday from sunny Kent. 21 points separate the top five drivers, with three races to go. Time to watch some *real* racing ...
Go Neal!
All-day coverage on ITV4 soon.
http://www.btcc.net/
Tory MPs are sitting at one end of this train carriage while on the other anti-cuts protesters practise their chants for #CPC16.
Songs include "We hate the Tories/because they're Tories" and "What shall we do with Theresa May?/Kick her out & make her homeless" #cpc16
As with much else at this time of year the cold light of day burns away the fog to reveal not much. When I opined last night this was just about the repeal of the ECA, a couple of the May sycophants jumped on me and told me how much more important and revolutionary this was.
No, it's not and I realise for some on here if May read extracts from the Maidenhead phone book she should be praised as the greatest orator since Cicero, those of us with critical faculties remaining can see this amount as a necessary first step but no more. I recall hearing that arch left winger Dominc Raab saying in the days after the referendum this was the first necessary legal step so that's all it is.
We have "senior Conservatives" which translates as relics from the Thatcher years, putting up "blueprints" and, as with the Poll Tax and we all know how well that turned out, it would be wise for the Prime Mnister to treat the clamour and baying from activists at Conference with the same disdain as Arthur Balfour.
Nothing wrong with Britain in the 70's was there? Bring back the Black and White Minstrels and "Curry and Chips"
Watch the first 10 minutes of this, if you can:
https://youtu.be/NlB3qEm1gOs
Percentage of net is what they offer to rubes....
Deep, deep fudge.
Thanks for the heads-up on the BTCC, Mrs Sandpit just lost control of the TV for the afternoon!
Edit: Lewis saying more than he should in his interview, very close to suggesting that Mercedes want the German driver to win the title.
It used to be that opposing the sale of indulgences was rank heresy.
Now, suggesting limits on immigration is to be "deplorable".
Our lords and masters should get down on their knees and pray very hard that all they will create with their idiocy is Martin Luther. It rather looks like they are going to get the Black Company instead.
Asa Bennett
#cpc16 protesters moved onto Labour- singing "There's only one Jeremy Corbyn" and "Owen Smith, always on TV/Owen Smith, who the hell is he?"
I'm going to miss Button. He entered F1 as a controversial young idiot, and will leave as a respected elder statesman.
Dissident pro-EU Conservatives will probably feel as welcome in Birmingham as anti-Corbyn Labour delegates last week in Liverpool.
We now need to see how Curly, Mo and Larry will run the A50 negotiations and, above all, where the lines are on Freedom of Movement and the Single Market and the degree to which the Conservatives will be able to unite behind any kind of negotiating position.
Compare with, oh I dunno, somewhere like Hungary...