malcolmg said:

Jobabob said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ishmael_X said:

JosiasJessop said:

braeside02 said:

Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.

Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.

Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.

As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.

Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.

Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.

Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?

Lot of it about these days on here. Witness the absurd Plato who puts people on ignore merely for challenging her, and the many PB Leavers who opine that those who backed Remain should just shut up about it and smile, despite their thinking Brexit is a disaster for the country.

Is that poor Bobajob gone backwards, or another village idiot

The very same village idiot Malcolm – hope you are well

I just wonder if the Germans and the French through the ECB will do to us what they did to Greece. With Greece it was the bond yields that were manipulated.With us they could continue to push the currency down until we almost beg for mercy.
What happens then?

timmo said:

I just wonder if the Germans and the French through the ECB will do to us what they did to Greece. With Greece it was the bond yields that were manipulated.With us they could continue to push the currency down until we almost beg for mercy.
What happens then?

They lose a lot of money?

TonyE said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

Anna Soubry "Single market, yes or no?"

SoS for Brexit "There are a spectrum of outcomes"

WTF is he talking about?

If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...

That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.

The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.

The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.

Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.

If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.

Scott_P said:

Anna Soubry "Single market, yes or no?"

SoS for Brexit "There are a spectrum of outcomes"

WTF is he talking about?

If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...

The idea that minds as mediocre as those possessed by David Davies and Liam Fox are going to play a pivotal role in shaping this country's ongoing relationship with the rest of the world is terrifying. They need ceaseless scrutiny.

TOPPING said:

Tissue_Price said:

TOPPING said:

Tissue_Price said:

TOPPING said:

If she announces to the country great news, we are still in the single market, plus we have some fudge on immigration, she worries now ahead of that moment that her bastards will skewer her for her "victory".

1/ PriU & Chd on skills not geography

3/Hard tough rules on criminals/terrorists.

LOL.

Customs officer: So, Mr X, I see you put on your visa application form that you are a terrorist...

And we used to laugh at the US visa question: do you advocate the overthrow of the United States by force...

More seriously,

2/ why the love affair with poor put-upon quants? They walk into jobs easily at the moment wherever they are from..India..EU..you name it - it is an uninformed soundbite. Check out e-financial careers and type in "quantitative" if you doubt it.

4/Fine for the refugees, haven't looked at 1951 UN Convention...sounds like an at the margin issue. Refugees aren't the problem, EU immigration is.

5/ k, that is the nub of the problem. How do we do this? Work visas presumably.

6/ fine, more Canadian navvies rather than Polish ones. Are we sure we will get the same number sufficient for our grand house-building programme? Or perhaps he means Indian ones. Or perhaps he really doesn't

Some of this may be LOL stuff (though 3 is surely more about ease of deportment than entry?) but the point is for the Government to set out a clear post-Brexit policy, which doesn't have to be repressive.

Yes well it is a start. My view is that the more debate there is about what we want post-Brexit UK to look like, the better. I worry that Tezza's strategy is to say nothing not because of negotiating tactics (they will leak Day 1 of actual negotiations), but because she is worried that anything she says will become a hostage to fortune.

I would prefer that the UK could unite, or at least agree to agree on a set of aims that we then send our negotiating team in to achieve.

Naive perhaps but that way national unity is preserved and when or if we don't achieve all we set out to, we all feel nevertheless feel invested in the outcome. The problem with this no running commentary thing is that whatever we get will come as a perhaps nasty surprise to a large number of people and I don't think that's the right approach in this critical and sensitive time.

I'm afraid I do think that is naive. We would obviously "agree" on as applepie a set of aims as we could and the government would then be blamed for not achieving them in negotiation.

TonyE said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

Anna Soubry "Single market, yes or no?"

SoS for Brexit "There are a spectrum of outcomes"

WTF is he talking about?

If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...

That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.

The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.

That does not detract from the state of our negotiating team. The 3 Amigo's are as weak as ditchwater. They will get slaughtered.

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

Anna Soubry "Single market, yes or no?"

SoS for Brexit "There are a spectrum of outcomes"

WTF is he talking about?

If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...

The idea that minds as mediocre as those possessed by David Davies and Liam Fox are going to play a pivotal role in shaping this country's ongoing relationship with the rest of the world is terrifying. They need ceaseless scrutiny.

They are certainly far better minds than Soubry's - mind you that's not saying much. I have known earthworms with more intelligence than Soubry.

Scott_P said:

david_herdson said:

I expect him to at least say what the opening bids will be. We will have to tell the other EU members at some point.

It will be of great advantage, and no-one to know what it is...

It was of great advantage... two houses, a garden and a new office if you really want to know what it wad

Ishmael_X said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ishmael_X said:

JosiasJessop said:

braeside02 said:

Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.

Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.

Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.

As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.

Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.

Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.

Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?

Dearie me. I am not Plato in disguise, you know, I was just trying to nullify the effect whereby any post making a general point is pounced on for evidence as to which primary-school-playground gang the poster belongs to. Unsuccessfully, it seems.

I'd never think you were Plato, in disguise or otherwise.

I don't particularly care what, if any, camp you are in. But I felt your point was wrong, so I made a contrary point. You certainly have not tried to address that point.

Perhaps "so save it" should go on the list of PB's banned phrases / words ...

HurstLlama said:

TonyE said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

Anna Soubry "Single market, yes or no?"

SoS for Brexit "There are a spectrum of outcomes"

WTF is he talking about?

If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...

That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.

The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.

The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.

Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.

If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.

I agree with all of that. But that's why we have a parliamentary system. Leavers should have been made to win a parliamentary majority where their plan could have been scrutinised in a GE campaign after opposition contact with Civil Servants. We only had a referendum because no one thought a Leave vote conceivable.

Jobabob said:

malcolmg said:

Jobabob said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ishmael_X said:

JosiasJessop said:

braeside02 said:

Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.

Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.

Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.

As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.

Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.

Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.

Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?

Lot of it about these days on here. Witness the absurd Plato who puts people on ignore merely for challenging her, and the many PB Leavers who opine that those who backed Remain should just shut up about it and smile, despite their thinking Brexit is a disaster for the country.

Is that poor Bobajob gone backwards, or another village idiot

The very same village idiot Malcolm – hope you are well

Glad you are back Bob, often wrong but a welcome addition to teh site. Hope you are also in the pink.

Tissue_Price said:

logical_song said:

david_herdson said:

taffys said:

''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''

Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.

I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.

I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.

Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.

Biden would have slaughtered Trump. Hillary still may, of course, but we're talking 450+ ECV with Biden as the candidate.

And a 50/50 split in the wwc vote instead of Trump still leading by ~20%. His oratory is better than Obama in a way because it can reach the average Joe.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Yo!

Isn't "Free Movement" racist against Africans, Americans, Arabs, Aussies, Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc, etc.?

Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.

It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?

Why have freedom of movement for Europeans but not other folks?

I guess for the same reason that all other countries have restrictions on freedom of movement.

But why a special case for 27 other countries, but not the other 165 UN member states?

Because the other 165 UN member states are not members of the European Union.

nunu said:

Tissue_Price said:

logical_song said:

david_herdson said:

taffys said:

''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''

Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.

I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.

I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.

Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.

Biden would have slaughtered Trump. Hillary still may, of course, but we're talking 450+ ECV with Biden as the candidate.

And a 50/50 split in the wwc vote instead of Trump still leading by ~20%. His oratory is better than Obama in a way because it can reach the average Joe.

I wonder why didn't he stand for President?

I don't think the devaluation is an economic problem. However the denial on here that it's a political problem is hilarious. The Leave Campaign was predicated on there been no pain or losers from Brexit. Leave didn't do the drudgery of cost/benefit analysis or detail. Perhaps that's why people like me made the huge mistake of not taking it seriously. None of which would matter except Leave actually won. So know we have the first of many losers. The devaluation is a political not an economic problem.

Richard_Tyndall said:

YellowSubmarine said:

HurstLlama said:

TonyE said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

Anna Soubry "Single market, yes or no?"

SoS for Brexit "There are a spectrum of outcomes"

WTF is he talking about?

If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...

That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.

The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.

The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.

Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.

If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.

I agree with all of that. But that's why we have a parliamentary system. Leavers should have been made to win a parliamentary majority where their plan could have been scrutinised in a GE campaign after opposition contact with Civil Servants. We only had a referendum because no one thought a Leave vote conceivable.

Nasty horrible electorate spoiling things for all those important politicians.

"I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you pesky voters!"

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Yo!

Isn't "Free Movement" racist against Africans, Americans, Arabs, Aussies, Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc, etc.?

Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.

It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?

It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.

We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.

Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Yo!

Isn't "Free Movement" racist against Africans, Americans, Arabs, Aussies, Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc, etc.?

Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.

It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?

It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.

We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.

Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.

But EU citizens are not British Citizens. Why one rule for them and one rule for non-EU people?

YellowSubmarine said:

HurstLlama said:

TonyE said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

Anna Soubry "Single market, yes or no?"

SoS for Brexit "There are a spectrum of outcomes"

WTF is he talking about?

If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...

That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.

The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.

The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.

Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.

If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.

I agree with all of that. But that's why we have a parliamentary system. Leavers should have been made to win a parliamentary majority where their plan could have been scrutinised in a GE campaign after opposition contact with Civil Servants. We only had a referendum because no one thought a Leave vote conceivable.

I wouldn't argue with that, Mr. Submarine, but we are where that bloody fool Cameron put us. To expect the government now to have all its ducks in a row and a coherent set of proposals is just bloody daft. In three to six months time possibly (and lights will be burning late in Whitehall to make that), but now, not four months after the vote and with piss all preparation done before hand, is crackers.

HMG just cannot be expected to have an answer for serious questions until at least mid-January at the earliest.

JosiasJessop said:

Ishmael_X said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ishmael_X said:

JosiasJessop said:

braeside02 said:

Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.

Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.

Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.

As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.

Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.

Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.

Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?

Dearie me. I am not Plato in disguise, you know, I was just trying to nullify the effect whereby any post making a general point is pounced on for evidence as to which primary-school-playground gang the poster belongs to. Unsuccessfully, it seems.

I'd never think you were Plato, in disguise or otherwise.

I don't particularly care what, if any, camp you are in. But I felt your point was wrong, so I made a contrary point. You certainly have not tried to address that point.

Perhaps "so save it" should go on the list of PB's banned phrases / words ...

Added.

malcolmg said:

Jobabob said:

malcolmg said:

Jobabob said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ishmael_X said:

JosiasJessop said:

braeside02 said:

Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.

Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.

Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.

As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.

Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.

Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.

Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?

Lot of it about these days on here. Witness the absurd Plato who puts people on ignore merely for challenging her, and the many PB Leavers who opine that those who backed Remain should just shut up about it and smile, despite their thinking Brexit is a disaster for the country.

Is that poor Bobajob gone backwards, or another village idiot

The very same village idiot Malcolm – hope you are well

Glad you are back Bob, often wrong but a welcome addition to teh site. Hope you are also in the pink.

A gentleman to the end Malcolm! Yes, all is well with me.

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Yo!

Isn't "Free Movement" racist against Africans, Americans, Arabs, Aussies, Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc, etc.?

Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.

It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?

It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.

We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.

Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.

You have no idea what the arrangements will be after Brexit.

And what you suggest would continue to be racist. Under your terms even more so as we would be making an arbitrary distinction between sets of countries we have no association with.

Of course personally I don't want more restrictions on immigration. I just want everyone to be treated equally with what restrictions there are being arranged fairly for all. A German should not get preferential treatment of an Indian.

Jobabob said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ishmael_X said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ishmael_X said:

JosiasJessop said:

braeside02 said:

Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.

Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.

Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.

As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.

Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.

Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.

Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?

Dearie me. I am not Plato in disguise, you know, I was just trying to nullify the effect whereby any post making a general point is pounced on for evidence as to which primary-school-playground gang the poster belongs to. Unsuccessfully, it seems.

I'd never think you were Plato, in disguise or otherwise.

I don't particularly care what, if any, camp you are in. But I felt your point was wrong, so I made a contrary point. You certainly have not tried to address that point.

Perhaps "so save it" should go on the list of PB's banned phrases / words ...

Added.

"Your name vill also go on the list. Vot is it?"
"Don't tell him, Pike!"

Alistair said:

619 said:

Missouri poll due later tonight. Apparently, its an eye opener. Is Clinton leading their?

Who is hyping it?

538 has Trump ahead almost 5% at the moment.

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Yo!

Isn't "Free Movement" racist against Africans, Americans, Arabs, Aussies, Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc, etc.?

Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.

It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?

But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.

No, they're not.

Yes actually they are.

That's like me saying that all Remainers are called traitors when they express doubts about leaving the EU.

My impression is that Fox is an cast iron idiot without the intelligence to have doubt. Education doesn't equal intelligence (as has long been argued and indeed proved on here).

Davis is more interesting. I had assumed that he was similar. Wiki though says he held the restructuring of a British Sugar sub. That sheds more light on his ability. It's possible that he'll be quite effective in his current role which is akin to a restructuring and relies, like a restructuring to a significant degree, on bullying and ego. It also helps to explain why he has frequently led a tribe of one and invests greater belief in his ability then always deserved - if you look at restructurings compared to going concerns there's frequently a completely different senior leadership team. The former doesn't take well to criticism and has a belief in the bulldozer principle of management (together with consultants to do detail). That might seem familiar.

SouthamObserver said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Yo!

Isn't "Free Movement" racist against Africans, Americans, Arabs, Aussies, Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc, etc.?

Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.

It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?

It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.

We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.

Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.

But EU citizens are not British Citizens. Why one rule for them and one rule for non-EU people?

Why one rule for Canadian citizens visiting the US and a different one for those from other countries? Why do Australia and New Zealand have free movement for their each other's citizens? Agreements are made, deals are done, and things happen. The EU's single market involves the free movement of the EU's citizens. We signed up to that. Now we have voted to leave it. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

Well, of course we VOTED to leave - The Sunil on Sunday was instrumental in that after all

But we haven't actually ended free movement - yet...

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Yo!

Isn't "Free Movement" racist against Africans, Americans, Arabs, Aussies, Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc, etc.?

Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.

It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?

It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.

We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.

Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.

Why? Do you have a time machine that enables you to look into the future? Just how can you be so certain s to say what will happen? I can think quite easily of three of four scenarios different from that which you paint. Just think back to pre-Maastricht for a start, then add in Anglosphere element.

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Yo!

Isn't "Free Movement" racist against Africans, Americans, Arabs, Aussies, Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc, etc.?

Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.

It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?

It discriminates on than basis of an utterly artificial boundary to a collection of hugely diverse states with the overwhelming number of people inside that boundary being white and the overwhelming number of people outside being non white.

We should have exactly the same rules for anyone wanting to come to the UK whether they are from the EU or from the rest of the world.

Countries everywhere vary their rules for incomers and we will too. EU citizens will continue to get preferential treatment when they come to the UK. They'll get their own passport queue and will be able to visit as they wish. That will not be the case for citizens of many other countries.

You have no idea what the arrangements will be after Brexit.

And what you suggest would continue to be racist. Under your terms even more so as we would be making an arbitrary distinction between sets of countries we have no association with.

Of course personally I don't want more restrictions on immigration. I just want everyone to be treated equally with what restrictions there are being arranged fairly for all. A German should not get preferential treatment of an Indian.

And a German will continue to get preferential treatment, in my opinion; just as India gives me preferential treatment over the Chinese citizens who work in our Hong Kong office, or to just about anyone over Pakistanis. Countries across the world discriminate between citizens of different states. My guess is that there will still be freedom of movement inside the UK for Irish citizens post-Brexit, too. No-one else will get that.

NEW THREAD

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Yo!

Isn't "Free Movement" racist against Africans, Americans, Arabs, Aussies, Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc, etc.?

Yep. The whole EU Freedom of movement policy is inherently racist.

It discriminates on the basis of citizenship, not race. Is there a country in the world that doesn't?

But when Leavers say they want to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, i.e. British people are allowed to control British borders, they are called racist.

No, they're not.

Yes actually they are.

That's like me saying that all Remainers are called traitors when they express doubts about leaving the EU.

I haven't heard mainstream commentators and politicians referring to Remain supporters as traitors. I have heard plenty of commentators and politicians referring to any proposed immigration controls as racist.

The Daily Mail was calling Remainers unpatriotic subversives today.

"Whingeing. Contemptuous. Unpatriotic. Damn the Bremoaners and their plot to subvert the will of the British people" 

That is a long way from calling them traitors.

So again you are proved wrong.

Richard_Tyndall said:

I haven't heard mainstream commentators and politicians referring to Remain supporters as traitors. I have heard plenty of commentators and politicians referring to any proposed immigration controls as racist.

https://twitter.com/h_l_thompson/status/786216936082403328

YellowSubmarine said:

HurstLlama said:

TonyE said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

Anna Soubry "Single market, yes or no?"

SoS for Brexit "There are a spectrum of outcomes"

WTF is he talking about?

If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...

That is a sample of the cream of the Tory crop , make you weep.

The blunt truth is that we should not be making our negotiating plan open knowledge at this stage.

The decision to leave was made only three months ago. A month or so was then taken up by the selection of the new PM, who then had to appoint a cabinet and generally rest the course of government. The new relationship will be devilishly complex to work out and will involve wide consultation and negotiation before we can even start to talk to the remainder of the EU. On top of that a decision was made to create a whole new department of state with, possibly, prime responsibility for negotiating our withdrawal from the EU - think how long that takes to get set up and running.

Like anyone with any real experience of how the civil service and government works, I would be amazed if HMG even has the outline for a negotiating position at this stage. Probably TM has laid down some provisional top level objectives, and I expect the civil service is beavering away like mad, but asking for concrete positions at this stage is daft.

If anyone wants to have a go about lack of preparedness then let them have a pop at the fool Cameron who called a referendum but forbade any work to be done on what would happen if he lost it.

I agree with all of that. But that's why we have a parliamentary system. Leavers should have been made to win a parliamentary majority where their plan could have been scrutinised in a GE campaign after opposition contact with Civil Servants. We only had a referendum because no one thought a Leave vote conceivable.

Still not accepting the result, I see.

Guess what; very few people like the EU and we're leaving.

ThreeQuidder said:

Jobabob said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

YouGov London poll

Sadiq Khan given poll boost to strengthen position as future Labour leader

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-given-poll-boost-to-strengthen-position-as-future-labour-leader-a3367201.html

Sod future Labour leader. I backed him to be *next* Labour leader.

The problem with that is that Labour won't want to lose the lock on the mayoralty that they have with Sadiq in the role. He is hugely popular here, and has already delivered on the Night Tube, which was forever delayed by fudge and faff under Boris.

It was delayed by the unions, I assume that Khan just caved to them.

It will be interesting to see what happens to his poll ratings when the fare increases that he promised wouldn't happen do.

You assume wrongly.