Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
Surely that would be, which EU-led programmes the EU would like us to continue to pay money into.
Sure, all British membership of the EU has ever been is robbery of the country by foreigners. Lorries full of cash left the Bank of England every day for Brussels, where cackling foreigners said in their foreign and incomprehensible languages "Thanks for all the cash!" Usually a joker then added "And make sure all your cucumbers are straight", just to increase the national humiliation of the defeated country that had lost all of its pride.
We need a plan, some goals, a strategy and then we need to execute efficiently.
You lot (apologies) seem to be saying let's just go for it now and it will all fall into place. As that wise and worldly ex-Civil Servant pointed out, free trade deals don't "just happen".
.
Yes
It would be no different to the current state of affairs where some governments have looser or tighter arrangements with foreign countries, which the EU now is. But to shut up those who lost the referendum and are trying to nause it for everyone, I'd accept Daves crap, rejected deal as a holding position
It's a nice idea, but Dave's deal became dead and buried with the Leave vote - there was a death clause for it in the negotiations. Vanilla WTO membership is now our default position; we need to build up whatever we can from that.
Ok what I am inferring is we should take the softest brexit possible, I used Daves deal as an example
I'm quite sure that the 'softest Brexit possible' would be easily attainable: it would be exactly the same as now, other than without any UK representation in the institutions. It also wouldn't be Brexit in any meaningful way.
The Brexit vote has to be honoured, which as a minimum means an end to free movement of people, an end to the jurisdiction of the CJEU over the UK and a substantial reduction in the club fee. In reality, I don't see how that can be squared with Single Market membership. As such, there ought to be no reason for Britain to pay a fee at all. That should be the baseline from which negotiations start.
Of course it wouldn't be Brexit in any meaningful way, that's what the people whining are trying to get! But I would offer them that as an olive branch/dummy to shut them up for the time being. At the next GE each party will have a manifesto outlining what they think our relationship w the EU should be, no different to any other foreign policy.
The idea that whatever May gets is set in stone, and would be the same whether the next Govt is a coalition between Lab/LD or Con/UKIP is crazy! It will change w every change of govt just like everything else
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
I think our starting position would be "yes" to all of them. If this causes a problem in the negotiations so be it.
Tough talk. Say EU27 adopts the starting position that it's "no" to all of them. What do you do then?
Or they could say "Fine! We'll help you with everything on your list, limies! Especially air traffic control, which we know is so important to you. And you'll give up the City of London's operations on the continent, yes?"
Well Galileo does seem to be a bit of an EU vanity project, so wouldn't be the end of the world to drop out of that.
Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
Surely that would be, which EU-led programmes the EU would like us to continue to pay money into.
Sure, all British membership of the EU ever was was robbery of the country by foreigners. Lorries full of cash left the Bank of England every day for Brussels, where cackling foreigners said in their foreign and incomprehensible languages "Thanks for all the cash!"
I'm glad we see it the same way. 'There is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth' etc.
The joining the EEC 50p piece had hands holding each other in a ring which pre-imagined the ring of 12 stars to represent the then 11 members. There will be endless fun drawing the one hand two finger gesture on the leave EU 50p coin.
9 members in 1973.
Oddly, eight of the hands were male, with one female. I never worked out why. I remember my gran telling me that they represented the heads of state at the time and that the female hand was the Queen's. Except that that can't be true because both Denmark and the Netherlands had queens as head of state at the time as well.
Re my "2037 EU" question. Indeed. I'm often struck how the USA sat down in 1787 (?) four years after gaining independence and wrote the template that still holds. They spent 1775 -83 being unified in what they were against (King George, no taxation without representation etc) but then sat down pdq to work out what the 13 little states had in common and what they all voted to sign up for. 230 years and counting implies they didn't do a bad job.
Where's the open visionary European equivalent? One of my major distrusts of the EU is my perception that nothing major was ever done by the front door of actually getting the consent of the people (nobody will ever convince me Germans would've voted to swap the DM for the Euro - and they would've been right and saved everyone an awful lot of grief if they'd been given a chance). It's almost as if Brussels is scared witless of the prospect of articulating a full fat, full caffeine federal union (jeez there's enough models out there USA, Canada, Australia, India), hence the constant diet of fudge to limbo.
Re the USA I believe it did get a bit rocky for a while in the 1860s!
In terms of international power politics, it would have been a good idea for Britain to take steps to ensure that the Confederacy remained in existence. Immoral, but a good idea.
Read Harry Turtledove's "Southern Victory" series and see if you still feel that way. He had an embittered Union ally with Prussia / Germany producing a Central Powers victory in his alternative WW1. The USA conquers all of Canada and liberates Ireland in toto from Great Britain. His WW2 has the rump Confederacy turn into Nazi Germany with the former slaves of the South being treated the same way as the Jews were in reality.
Re my "2037 EU" question. Indeed. I'm often struck how the USA sat down in 1787 (?) four years after gaining independence and wrote the template that still holds. They spent 1775 -83 being unified in what they were against (King George, no taxation without representation etc) but then sat down pdq to work out what the 13 little states had in common and what they all voted to sign up for. 230 years and counting implies they didn't do a bad job.
Where's the open visionary European equivalent? One of my major distrusts of the EU is my perception that nothing major was ever done by the front door of actually getting the consent of the people (nobody will ever convince me Germans would've voted to swap the DM for the Euro - and they would've been right and saved everyone an awful lot of grief if they'd been given a chance). It's almost as if Brussels is scared witless of the prospect of articulating a full fat, full caffeine federal union (jeez there's enough models out there USA, Canada, Australia, India), hence the constant diet of fudge to limbo.
Re the USA I believe it did get a bit rocky for a while in the 1860s!
In terms of international power politics, it would have been a good idea for Britain to take steps to ensure that the Confederacy remained in existence. Immoral, but a good idea.
Read Harry Turtledove's "Southern Victory" series and see if you still feel that way. He had an embittered Union ally with Prussia / Germany producing a Central Powers victory in his alternative WW1. The USA conquers all of Canada and liberates Ireland in toto from Great Britain. His WW2 has the rump Confederacy turn into Nazi Germany with the former slaves of the South being treated the same way as the Jews were in reality.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Germany didn't like America - the Kaiser had a plan to reinvade. I'd have let him have at it.
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
Many, huh?
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
Farage
" the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand said they’re in a race for who could be the first country to make a trade deal with Britain outside the European Union."
But does Farage use the word "begging". Goes he say our old colonies will be BEGGING us for a trade deal, because they are so glad we are free?
No, Farage is saying - in his hyperbolic way - that NZ and Oz will be very keen to do a trade deal once we are outside the EU. And he's right, of course, they will. There's no reason they won't.
Plenty of Leavers have said daft things (as have europhiles). But the idea most Leavers are blazered imperialists is just a bizarre caricature which only exists in the minds of crazed, drooling Remainers like williamglenn
Imagine all that cheap Australian Iron ore and coal, that wheat and wool.
Something that appears here from time to time is the tale of an American buying London Bridge.
He did. And you can see it today.
"London Bridge is a bridge in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. It was built in the 1830s and formerly spanned the River Thames in London, England. It was dismantled in 1967 and relocated to Arizona. The Arizona bridge is a reinforced concrete structure clad in the original masonry of the 1830s bridge, which was purchased by Robert P. McCulloch from the City of London. McCulloch had exterior granite blocks from the original bridge numbered and transported to America to construct the present bridge in Lake Havasu City, a planned community he established in 1964 on the shore of Lake Havasu. The bridge was completed in 1971 (along with a canal), and links an island in the Colorado River with the main part of Lake Havasu City. The song London Bridge is Falling Down is a nursery rhyme that predates the bridge's original 19th century construction."
- An evolution of democratic accountability of the Commission in a way that deals with some of the legitimate criticisms. (And an end to absurdities like the travelling parliament). This could possibly be achieved as part of another (and final) attempt at a constitutional treaty. - An expansion of the Eurozone. - A level of economic development in the former Communist countries that is closer to the west, thereby removing migration pressure. - A privileged partnership with Russia including a comprehensive trade agreement and visa-free travel.
Bouvier is too Jackie Bittencourt is a bit too weird, readers will worry how to pronounce the final T (it's important to have names that readers feel easy speaking in their minds, as Byron discovered when he titled a poem The Giaour, and regretted soon after when he realised that even HE didn't know how to pronounce it) Molyneaux is OK, but reminds me of Wolverhampton
Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
I think our starting position would be "yes" to all of them. If this causes a problem in the negotiations so be it.
I can't comment on the others but not being part of Eurocontrol would be an immense pain for all parties. On a similar theme, I'm interested in what happens to panEuropean aviation and freedom to fly. Given that we are one of the key beneficiaries of it to the detriment of legacy carriers like AF/KLM, LOT and Alitalia one can see where this could head - a return to bilaterals other than where open skies was negotiated earlier (UK-Neth). Interesting cost implications.
- An evolution of democratic accountability of the Commission in a way that deals with some of the legitimate criticisms. (And an end to absurdities like the travelling parliament). This could possibly be achieved as part of another (and final) attempt at a constitutional treaty. - An expansion of the Eurozone. - A level of economic development in the former Communist countries that is closer to the west, thereby removing migration pressure. - A privileged partnership with Russia including a comprehensive trade agreement and visa-free travel.
OK but a bit fudgy?
I want to be able at the least to put X's in boxes and fire people clearly.
Does a leader in territory "a" have the right to invite people from outside in and insist they live in territory "b"? If so how do I fire them if I live in b?
Who's taxing whom? How do I fire them?
Is there one army? One treasury? One lingua franca? Fail to see how a really properly functioning labour market works without one across hundreds of millions of people.
Re my "2037 EU" question. Indeed. I'm often struck how the USA sat down in 1787 (?) four years after gaining independence and wrote the template that still holds. They spent 1775 -83 being unified in what they were against (King George, no taxation without representation etc) but then sat down pdq to work out what the 13 little states had in common and what they all voted to sign up for. 230 years and counting implies they didn't do a bad job.
Where's the open visionary European equivalent? One of my major distrusts of the EU is my perception that nothing major was ever done by the front door of actually getting the consent of the people (nobody will ever convince me Germans would've voted to swap the DM for the Euro - and they would've been right and saved everyone an awful lot of grief if they'd been given a chance). It's almost as if Brussels is scared witless of the prospect of articulating a full fat, full caffeine federal union (jeez there's enough models out there USA, Canada, Australia, India), hence the constant diet of fudge to limbo.
Re the USA I believe it did get a bit rocky for a while in the 1860s!
In terms of international power politics, it would have been a good idea for Britain to take steps to ensure that the Confederacy remained in existence. Immoral, but a good idea.
Read Harry Turtledove's "Southern Victory" series and see if you still feel that way. He had an embittered Union ally with Prussia / Germany producing a Central Powers victory in his alternative WW1. The USA conquers all of Canada and liberates Ireland in toto from Great Britain. His WW2 has the rump Confederacy turn into Nazi Germany with the former slaves of the South being treated the same way as the Jews were in reality.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Germany didn't like America - the Kaiser had a plan to reinvade. I'd have let him have at it.
IIRC in the books the military links with Germany begin soon after the Civil War (in reality there were Prussian military observers with the Union army - Count Zeppelin of airship fame was one), and solidify into an alliance during the 1880s after the North loses a second war with the South over the latter's purchase of north-western Mexico (still a Habsburg client state in this world). It's all basically a wheeze for Turtledove to get full-scale trench warfare in North America and General Custer (who doesn't die in some obscure action in the Indian Wars in this world) as a Haig- / Petain- a-like. Quite a good read overall but there's something like ten books in the series so quite a time sink.
I am always a little amused by Mike's headers that show the LibDems so well-placed and disaster about to befall the Tories. I am also amused by how Europe is now treated as such a central thing in British politics whereas, of course, in the run up to the referendum those suggesting its was were ill-informed or foolish.
Certainly complacency is the Tories' biggest danger at the moment. But just as Mike overly dismissed the importance of Europe in the run up to the referendum, I suspect that, even while Europe is clearly a key issue and the issue which will most preoccupy British political life until the deal is done, he is now overstating it in relation to its importance to strife within the current Tory party. Sure, there are differences, but I suspect there is more that binds those within the party who are on opposing sides of the Brexit debate than there is that divides them.
No, Farage is saying - in his hyperbolic way - that NZ and Oz will be very keen to do a trade deal once we are outside the EU. And he's right, of course, they will. There's no reason they won't.
Plenty of Leavers have said daft things (as have europhiles). But the idea most Leavers are blazered imperialists is just a bizarre caricature which only exists in the minds of crazed, drooling Remainers like williamglenn
But it's accurate in the case of Nigel Farage and others who give major importance to irrelevancies such as trade relations with Australia and New Zealand.
Why does Farage pick out those two countries? Total British-Australian trade is about 60% of trade with India, two-thirds of trade with South Korea, and about the same as trade with Singapore. As for British-NZ trade, it's less than Britain's trade with Pakistan.
Farage mentions Australia and New Zealand because they're honky.
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
Many, huh?
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
Farage
" the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand said they’re in a race for who could be the first country to make a trade deal with Britain outside the European Union."
But does Farage use the word "begging". Goes he say our old colonies will be BEGGING us for a trade deal, because they are so glad we are free?
No, Farage is saying - in his hyperbolic way - that NZ and Oz will be very keen to do a trade deal once we are outside the EU. And he's right, of course, they will. There's no reason they won't.
Plenty of Leavers have said daft things (as have europhiles). But the idea most Leavers are blazered imperialists is just a bizarre caricature which only exists in the minds of crazed, drooling Remainers like williamglenn
Imagine all that cheap Australian Iron ore and coal, that wheat and wool.
Just what we need...
The iron ore, wool and wheat would be extremely welcome.
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
Many, huh?
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
Farage
" the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand said they’re in a race for who could be the first country to make a trade deal with Britain outside the European Union."
But does Farage use the word "begging". Goes he say our old colonies will be BEGGING us for a trade deal, because they are so glad we are free?
No, Farage is saying - in his hyperbolic way - that NZ and Oz will be very keen to do a trade deal once we are outside the EU. And he's right, of course, they will. There's no reason they won't.
Plenty of Leavers have said daft things (as have europhiles). But the idea most Leavers are blazered imperialists is just a bizarre caricature which only exists in the minds of crazed, drooling Remainers like williamglenn
Imagine all that cheap Australian Iron ore and coal, that wheat and wool.
Just what we need...
The iron ore, wool and wheat would be extremely welcome.
Very handy for our thriving steel and textile industries.
Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
The EU side just isn't interested and is not going to invest any political goodwill into negotiations with the UK. It has lots of problems of its own; it needs Brexit like a hole in the head; it doesn't owe the UK anything. They are not even out particularly to punish the UK, I believe. I also don't think they are interested in temporary arrangements that will drag out the uncertainty. In any case we will need to move onto WTO negotiations, which is a hornet's nest of its own, and third parties will want to understand our relationship with the EU, as well as our WTO schedules, before moving onto any bilateral deals.
Given that context, the UK has two basic Brexit choices. Our government is completely in denial and refuses to face up to that choice. The choices are either minimum change or minimum deal. It's not completely binary - ie no change or no deal - there are things we can negotiate at the margins. But those are the starting points.
I have struggled with that choice, personally, since before June last year. I don't think "minimum change" will work. Why go for something that is basically the same as the membership option that we rejected in the referendum, but is clearly worse than membership in terms of sovereignty and our decision making? On the other hand "minimum deal" is destructive.
We can't gainsay the referendum result, so we will have to go for one of those suboptimal options. Pistol to my head, I think it has to be "minimum change" We need a national debate on our destination, but it doesn't look like we're going to get one.
No, Farage is saying - in his hyperbolic way - that NZ and Oz will be very keen to do a trade deal once we are outside the EU. And he's right, of course, they will. There's no reason they won't.
Plenty of Leavers have said daft things (as have europhiles). But the idea most Leavers are blazered imperialists is just a bizarre caricature which only exists in the minds of crazed, drooling Remainers like williamglenn
But it's accurate in the case of Nigel Farage and others who give major importance to irrelevancies such as trade relations with Australia and New Zealand.
Why does Farage pick out those two countries? Total British-Australian trade is about 60% of trade with India, two-thirds of trade with South Korea, and about the same as trade with Singapore. As for British-NZ trade, it's less than Britain's trade with Pakistan.
Farage mentions Australia and New Zealand because they're honky.
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
Many, huh?
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
Farage
" the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand said they’re in a race for who could be the first country to make a trade deal with Britain outside the European Union."
But does Farage use the word "begging". Goes he say our old colonies will be BEGGING us for a trade deal, because they are so glad we are free?
No, Farage is saying - in his hyperbolic way - that NZ and Oz will be very keen to do a trade deal once we are outside the EU. And he's right, of course, they will. There's no reason they won't.
Plenty of Leavers have said daft things (as have europhiles). But the idea most Leavers are blazered imperialists is just a bizarre caricature which only exists in the minds of crazed, drooling Remainers like williamglenn
Imagine all that cheap Australian Iron ore and coal, that wheat and wool.
Just what we need...
The iron ore, wool and wheat would be extremely welcome.
Very handy for our thriving steel and textile industries.
You jest, but both of those industries would thrive post Brexit with cheap raw input.
@ SeanT How about Quintin Quincaille. Not quite 3 syllables, but I like the idea of a worthless objet of an upper class twit. Or you could go with Quincailler.
- An evolution of democratic accountability of the Commission in a way that deals with some of the legitimate criticisms. (And an end to absurdities like the travelling parliament). This could possibly be achieved as part of another (and final) attempt at a constitutional treaty. - An expansion of the Eurozone. - A level of economic development in the former Communist countries that is closer to the west, thereby removing migration pressure. - A privileged partnership with Russia including a comprehensive trade agreement and visa-free travel.
OK but a bit fudgy?
I want to be able at the least to put X's in boxes and fire people clearly.
Does a leader in territory "a" have the right to invite people from outside in and insist they live in territory "b"? - No. Common rules on acquiring citizenship/residency to prevent immigration arbitrage. (And transition rules for new members are mandatory and cannot be waived by governments like New Labour.)
Who's taxing whom? - National states.
How do I fire them? - General elections + eventual election of Commission President.
Is there one army? - No but there is an integrated command structure.
One treasury? - No, many treasuries.
One lingua franca? - To the extent that this is needed it happens organically, and already is - English.
I once wanted a character for an (unpublished) young adult book. I came up with the perfect name, one that encapsulated the character's attributes perfectly.
I started writing, then googled the name. First hit was an American striptease artist.
I once wanted a character for an (unpublished) young adult book. I came up with the perfect name, one that encapsulated the character's attributes perfectly.
I started writing, then googled the name. First hit was an American striptease artist.
In my parents case, a stone floor (welsh quarry tiles) highly polished by years of wear (lethal when wet) and elderly dogs. It also meant the old english sheep dog was denied his fun of charging in from the garden at top speed and sliding the length of the kitchen. Seeing 7 stone of dog sliding was amusing unless you were in the way...
Listening to Radio 4 this afternoon they really are laughably dire. Pushing the idea that the senior levels of the Civil Service are neutral and that the current criticism of Sir Ivan is an attack on that impartiality. They are not impartial and haven't been for years. Blair ensured a comprehensive corrupting of that concept and all we are seeing now is that partial Civil Service being brought to account
Why don't we have things like an accent aigu on our letters? It makes the French language seem even more elegant and classy.
Please note this shouldn't be mistaken as a pro French comment by me.
The most pretentious and ugly thing in the English speaking world is the New Yorker's insistence on using diaereses so words like pre-empt become preëmpt.
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
Many, huh?
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
Farage
" the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand said they’re in a race for who could be the first country to make a trade deal with Britain outside the European Union."
But does Farage use the word "begging". Goes he say our old colonies will be BEGGING us for a trade deal, because they are so glad we are free?
No, Farage is saying - in his hyperbolic way - that NZ and Oz will be very keen to do a trade deal once we are outside the EU. And he's right, of course, they will. There's no reason they won't.
Plenty of Leavers have said daft things (as have europhiles). But the idea most Leavers are blazered imperialists is just a bizarre caricature which only exists in the minds of crazed, drooling Remainers like williamglenn
Imagine all that cheap Australian Iron ore and coal, that wheat and wool.
Just what we need...
The iron ore, wool and wheat would be extremely welcome.
Very handy for our thriving steel and textile industries.
You jest, but both of those industries would thrive post Brexit with cheap raw input.
What is the current import tarrif on Australian Iron ore?
True, which is why many of us opposed the xenophobia of Brexit and Farage's Little England
Yes, you are a patriot, but not for this country. You serve a differnt master. That much is clear.
Max, I'm getting a bit worried about you. You appear to be turning into some sort of crypto-fascist. Have you become best mates with Arron Banks or something?
I once wanted a character for an (unpublished) young adult book. I came up with the perfect name, one that encapsulated the character's attributes perfectly.
I started writing, then googled the name. First hit was an American striptease artist.
I changed the name.
Not Teresa May again?
Nah. Note I said the name encapsulated the character's attributes perfectly. The character was strong and decisive: the only thing she has in common with Teresa May is that they both find themselves out of their depth.
Why don't we have things like an accent aigu on our letters? It makes the French language seem even more elegant and classy.
Please note this shouldn't be mistaken as a pro French comment by me.
The most pretentious and ugly thing in the English speaking world is the New Yorker's insistence on using diaereses so words like pre-empt become preëmpt.
There is so much ugly about New Yorkers that it's tough to choose. From "toyty Toyd Street" to "doncha wanna loin nuttin?"
True, which is why many of us opposed the xenophobia of Brexit and Farage's Little England
Yes, you are a patriot, but not for this country. You serve a differnt master. That much is clear.
Max, I'm getting a bit worried about you. You appear to be turning into some sort of crypto-fascist. Have you become best mates with Arron Banks or something?
Purge the wreckers, kulaks and cosmopolitans! All power to the Brexit Soviets.
True, which is why many of us opposed the xenophobia of Brexit and Farage's Little England
Yes, you are a patriot, but not for this country. You serve a differnt master. That much is clear.
Max, I'm getting a bit worried about you. You appear to be turning into some sort of crypto-fascist. Have you become best mates with Arron Banks or something?
No, I just believe that all British citizens have a duty to the state, especially in tough times. Those who do not think so set themselves against this country and deserve ridicule and scorn.
True, which is why many of us opposed the xenophobia of Brexit and Farage's Little England
Yes, you are a patriot, but not for this country. You serve a differnt master. That much is clear.
Max, I'm getting a bit worried about you. You appear to be turning into some sort of crypto-fascist. Have you become best mates with Arron Banks or something?
No, I just believe that all British citizens have a duty to the state, especially in tough times. Those who do not think so set themselves against this country and deserve ridicule and scorn.
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
Many, huh?
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
Farage
" the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand said they’re in a race for who could be the first country to make a trade deal with Britain outside the European Union."
But does Farage use the word "begging". Goes he say our old colonies will be BEGGING us for a trade deal, because they are so glad we are free?
No, Farage is saying - in his hyperbolic way - that NZ and Oz will be very keen to do a trade deal once we are outside the EU. And he's right, of course, they will. There's no reason they won't.
Plenty of Leavers have said daft things (as have europhiles). But the idea most Leavers are blazered imperialists is just a bizarre caricature which only exists in the minds of crazed, drooling Remainers like williamglenn
Imagine all that cheap Australian Iron ore and coal, that wheat and wool.
Just what we need...
The iron ore, wool and wheat would be extremely welcome.
Very handy for our thriving steel and textile industries.
You jest, but both of those industries would thrive post Brexit with cheap raw input.
What is the current import tarrif on Australian Iron ore?
True, which is why many of us opposed the xenophobia of Brexit and Farage's Little England
Yes, you are a patriot, but not for this country. You serve a differnt master. That much is clear.
Max, I'm getting a bit worried about you. You appear to be turning into some sort of crypto-fascist. Have you become best mates with Arron Banks or something?
No, I just believe that all British citizens have a duty to the state, especially in tough times. Those who do not think so set themselves against this country and deserve ridicule and scorn.
The British state is not in favour of Brexit.
It absolutely is, and Sir Ivan getting shat on from a great height today proves it. The purge of the remainers has begun, they've proved they can't be trusted. Like you they serve a different master.
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
Many, huh?
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
Farage
" the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand said they’re in a race for who could be the first country to make a trade deal with Britain outside the European Union."
But does Farage use the word "begging". Goes he say our old colonies will be BEGGING us for a trade deal, because they are so glad we are free?
No, Farage is saying - in his hyperbolic way - that NZ and Oz will be very keen to do a trade deal once we are outside the EU. And he's right, of course, they will. There's no reason they won't.
Plenty of Leavers have said daft things (as have europhiles). But the idea most Leavers are blazered imperialists is just a bizarre caricature which only exists in the minds of crazed, drooling Remainers like williamglenn
Imagine all that cheap Australian Iron ore and coal, that wheat and wool.
Just what we need...
The iron ore, wool and wheat would be extremely welcome.
Very handy for our thriving steel and textile industries.
You jest, but both of those industries would thrive post Brexit with cheap raw input.
What is the current import tarrif on Australian Iron ore?
Is the tarrif on iron ore from Australia 95 euro per 1000kg less than for wheat?
I would imagine that most things which, being a member of, meant that we would fall under the jurisdiction of the ECJ would send poor old Jacob's blood pressure skywards.
True, which is why many of us opposed the xenophobia of Brexit and Farage's Little England
Yes, you are a patriot, but not for this country. You serve a differnt master. That much is clear.
Max, I'm getting a bit worried about you. You appear to be turning into some sort of crypto-fascist. Have you become best mates with Arron Banks or something?
No, I just believe that all British citizens have a duty to the state, especially in tough times. Those who do not think so set themselves against this country and deserve ridicule and scorn.
The British state is not in favour of Brexit.
It absolutely is, and Sir Ivan getting shat on from a great height today proves it. The purge of the remainers has begun, they've proved they can't be trusted. Like you they serve a different master.
Translation - people that do not agree with Max are traitors.
Just watched 'Frozen' with the little 'un. What a glorious film.
An amazingly could constructed film. The attention that detail in the dialogue and lyrics means it stands up to repeated viewing as an adult ( many, many, many repeated viewings!). Both Love is an open door and the troll song have much different meanings when rewatched.
Also the incredibly bolded decision to put 4 show stopping songs in the first 30 mins of a 100min movie is daringly unconventional for Disney or indeed anyone.
True, which is why many of us opposed the xenophobia of Brexit and Farage's Little England
Yes, you are a patriot, but not for this country. You serve a differnt master. That much is clear.
Max, I'm getting a bit worried about you. You appear to be turning into some sort of crypto-fascist. Have you become best mates with Arron Banks or something?
No, I just believe that all British citizens have a duty to the state, especially in tough times. Those who do not think so set themselves against this country and deserve ridicule and scorn.
The British state is not in favour of Brexit.
It absolutely is, and Sir Ivan getting shat on from a great height today proves it. The purge of the remainers has begun, they've proved they can't be trusted. Like you they serve a different master.
Translation - people that do not agree with Max are traitors.
Not at all, just that those who set themselves against the will of the British people and are unwilling to do their duty to the state or would rather serve an outside master like Brussels. They should be purged from the civil service, the BBC and other walks of public influence.
Comments
Am I on the right lines?
The Brexit vote has to be honoured, which as a minimum means an end to free movement of people, an end to the jurisdiction of the CJEU over the UK and a substantial reduction in the club fee. In reality, I don't see how that can be squared with Single Market membership. As such, there ought to be no reason for Britain to pay a fee at all. That should be the baseline from which negotiations start.
Of course it wouldn't be Brexit in any meaningful way, that's what the people whining are trying to get! But I would offer them that as an olive branch/dummy to shut them up for the time being. At the next GE each party will have a manifesto outlining what they think our relationship w the EU should be, no different to any other foreign policy.
The idea that whatever May gets is set in stone, and would be the same whether the next Govt is a coalition between Lab/LD or Con/UKIP is crazy! It will change w every change of govt just like everything else
It sounds almost as though he's referring to himself.
It's also a car marque which may confuse things.
Oddly, eight of the hands were male, with one female. I never worked out why. I remember my gran telling me that they represented the heads of state at the time and that the female hand was the Queen's. Except that that can't be true because both Denmark and the Netherlands had queens as head of state at the time as well.
Bittencourt
Just what we need...
(Although Frankie Redhouse might object)
Farage? (gets coat)
- An evolution of democratic accountability of the Commission in a way that deals with some of the legitimate criticisms. (And an end to absurdities like the travelling parliament). This could possibly be achieved as part of another (and final) attempt at a constitutional treaty.
- An expansion of the Eurozone.
- A level of economic development in the former Communist countries that is closer to the west, thereby removing migration pressure.
- A privileged partnership with Russia including a comprehensive trade agreement and visa-free travel.
Simonet
Dassault
I spit on your execrable 3-syllable rule.
I want to be able at the least to put X's in boxes and fire people clearly.
Does a leader in territory "a" have the right to invite people from outside in and insist they live in territory "b"? If so how do I fire them if I live in b?
Who's taxing whom? How do I fire them?
Is there one army? One treasury? One lingua franca? Fail to see how a really properly functioning labour market works without one across hundreds of millions of people.
Martineau?
Geone
Though the DeLaceys that I know are Irish,
Accambray?
Boursellier?
Gallopin?
Certainly complacency is the Tories' biggest danger at the moment. But just as Mike overly dismissed the importance of Europe in the run up to the referendum, I suspect that, even while Europe is clearly a key issue and the issue which will most preoccupy British political life until the deal is done, he is now overstating it in relation to its importance to strife within the current Tory party. Sure, there are differences, but I suspect there is more that binds those within the party who are on opposing sides of the Brexit debate than there is that divides them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delahaye
Why does Farage pick out those two countries? Total British-Australian trade is about 60% of trade with India, two-thirds of trade with South Korea, and about the same as trade with Singapore. As for British-NZ trade, it's less than Britain's trade with Pakistan.
Farage mentions Australia and New Zealand because they're honky.
Given that context, the UK has two basic Brexit choices. Our government is completely in denial and refuses to face up to that choice. The choices are either minimum change or minimum deal. It's not completely binary - ie no change or no deal - there are things we can negotiate at the margins. But those are the starting points.
I have struggled with that choice, personally, since before June last year. I don't think "minimum change" will work. Why go for something that is basically the same as the membership option that we rejected in the referendum, but is clearly worse than membership in terms of sovereignty and our decision making? On the other hand "minimum deal" is destructive.
We can't gainsay the referendum result, so we will have to go for one of those suboptimal options. Pistol to my head, I think it has to be "minimum change" We need a national debate on our destination, but it doesn't look like we're going to get one.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~egreef/channelislandsurnames.htm
VAVASSEUR looks good!
Desqueyroux.
Martinez
Garnier
Fontaine
Duvilliers
Lesperance
Levesque
Metayer
Poirier
St-Laurent
These are all from my wife's family tree - she has French Canadian ancestry on both sides.
I started writing, then googled the name. First hit was an American striptease artist.
I changed the name.
"Michel Du Tamareau"
It is French sounding enough but also harks back to your roots...
Aubernon?
Baptistin?
Bernard Diomède was a Liverpool footballer who played for France.
Now the 'Skins are out, I find myself actually rooting for the 'Boys this post-season. The new kids vs Brady.
Please note this shouldn't be mistaken as a pro French comment by me.
The only suspense for the Skins is what to do about Kirk Cousins - he's going to get paid.
a lack of ridiculous hieroglyphs is one of the reasons we're the world language
Just watched 'Frozen' with the little 'un. What a glorious film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQOecUSU5Rg#action=share
Mirabeau, Fontevraud, Montferrat, Aquitaine, Plantagenet (oops)
Also the incredibly bolded decision to put 4 show stopping songs in the first 30 mins of a 100min movie is daringly unconventional for Disney or indeed anyone.
A stunning impressive work of craft and guile.