Anorak said:

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

She thought the EdStone was a brilliant idea special.

"Just because they are carved on a tablet, doesn't mean they are written in stone..."

Holy shit, she actually said that:
https://leftfootforward.org/2015/05/heres-what-lucy-powell-really-said-about-labours-edstone/

You can see why I'm voting tactically for her can't you?

ToryJim said:

GIN1138 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tim has been looking at the polls:

https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/status/854371377171836928

LOL!

So Theresa's personal ratings against Jezza are almost double those Thatcher had against Foot.

Thatch's majority in 1983 was 144 so if we double that with Theresa's personal rating we get a Con majority of around 280?

As Ave It would say... Com Gain... Everywhere!

I'm fairly sure 465 seats is a tad optimistic

Baxter Con 57%, Labour 19%, LD 7%, UKIP 7%, Green 4%: Con 494

So 465 seems a tad conservative

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

PAGING PUNTERS

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/854939258121064449

Perhaps we should suggest that their money would be more effective if invested in the constituency markets :InnocentFace

I'm trying my best to convince them to do that.

Roger said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Roger said:

MarqueeMark said:

Roger said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Scott_P said:

ThreeQuidder said:

None. They could choose to not relocate their agencies if they wanted.

Brexit means Brexit...

You won. Suck it up!

No, you lost. If you and your like had put one tenth of the effort into campaigning that you put into doing your primary school sneak act on the internet (Ooooh Miss! Miss! Gove and Johnson have been writing on the school bus! Oooh Miss, May told an untruth about election dates! Tell them the didn't orter!) David Cameron would be in Downing Street today.

I don't think it was effort but strategy. Few of us could have anticipated how the fear of an invasion of foreigners would swing the result.

For an ad man, you don't know much about people!

Having the Referendum timed to be within a fortnight of the immigration numbers coming out was just plain dumb-as-a-brick stupid by Remain.

It was a mad decision but it wasn't part of the Remain strategy. It was 100% a decision by Cameron. He just hadn't thought it through

In one of the greatest ironies in UK politics, Cameron decided to hold the referendum in June 2016 and not say April 2017 because he didn't want this Parliament to be dominated by the referendum.

One day we might be able to laugh at that. But it's too soon.

Some talk of Cameron joining TM in campaigning in the south west. If true good move as he is popular there

Anorak said:

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

She thought the EdStone was a brilliant idea special.

"Just because they are carved on a tablet, doesn't mean they are written in stone..."

Holy shit, she actually said that:
https://leftfootforward.org/2015/05/heres-what-lucy-powell-really-said-about-labours-edstone/

Oxford standards are definitely slipping...

Floater said:

Poor old Scott has gone slightly unhinged post referendum.

I am not the one whining about the effects of leaving

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

We are talking about the terms on which we leave. Which are negotiable.

No, we are talking about the act of leaving, which apparently our Minister for Brexit hasn't grasped yet

The UK’s chief Brexit negotiator, minister David Davis will fight to keep the European Medicines Agency in London, despite the country leaving the EU.

The Financial Times has reported that the Brexit secretary doesn’t accept that the European drugs regulator and its 900 staff need to depart from London when the UK exits the European Union – despite Europe’s leaders indicating that this would be impossible.

The FT reports that Davis also believes that the UK can also retain another key EU institution, the European Banking Authority (EBA), also located in London. Having the agencies is a reflection of the country’s strength in banking and in pharmaceuticals, and they have strengthened the attractiveness of the UK sector.

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/uk-hasnt-given-keeping-european-medicines-agency/

This endless whining of the Brexiteers about the bad things that are happening as a result of Brexit is really tiresome, and now we have another 5 years to go instead of 2.

Awesome...

Interesting, isn't it? Many voters care about immigration. The politicians seem to care most about grovelling to loan sharks and drug pushers providing accommodation for the public-spirited regulators of the big banks and pharmaceutical companies.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sure, but we are not asking to keep the bits we like

ROFLMAO

"Please, please, please keep the headquarters of the club we just left here, please..."

The issue isn't whether the agencies stay here, it's whether we have to pay costs if the EU27 (not the UK) decide to move them. What on earth have any such costs to do with us? We won't be members of the club. We won't even have a vote in their decision.

What it has to do with us is that we decided to host the agencies and then held a referendum on leaving. If we considered our membership to be a temporary affair, we shouldn't have bid to host EU agencies.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

She thought the EdStone was a brilliant idea special.

"Just because they are carved on a tablet, doesn't mean they are written in stone..."

Holy shit, she actually said that:
https://leftfootforward.org/2015/05/heres-what-lucy-powell-really-said-about-labours-edstone/

You can see why I'm voting tactically for her can't you?

Yes but comically inept Labour politicians on the telly and radio are now a daily (almost hourly) event. It's not as if you're preserving an endangered species. I'll put it down to nostalgia. Plus, strangely alluring (and I need help).

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

With 24% leads for the Tories, I'd hate for Lucy Powell to lose her seat.

She's special and needs to be in Parliament.

Strangely-alluring special, or short-bus special?

She thought the EdStone was a brilliant idea special.

Am I being slow? You're voting for her becasue she's a window-licker, but a Labour window-licker and having window-lickers is damaging to Labour? Fair dinkum!

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

Poor old Scott has gone slightly unhinged post referendum.

I am not the one whining about the effects of leaving

Got your head around immediate negative effects of the VOTE to leave yet?

Nope, thought not.

Beverley_C said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

PAGING PUNTERS

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/854939258121064449

Have you contracted to Putin for a bit of election-swinging? If so, I think we should be told!

Find out whether it works for François Asselineau first!

MarkHopkins said:

Roger said:

OT. Interestingly for an area supposedly sympathetic to the far right I have yet to see a poster for Marine Le Pen without a Hitler moustache.

Put the pen down Roger...

Have I missed one?

Floater said:

Got your head around immediate negative effects of the VOTE to leave yet?

Like the EMA moving?

Yep. When will the Brexiteers catch up?

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sure, but we are not asking to keep the bits we like

ROFLMAO

"Please, please, please keep the headquarters of the club we just left here, please..."

The issue isn't whether the agencies stay here, it's whether we have to pay costs if the EU27 (not the UK) decide to move them. What on earth have any such costs to do with us? We won't be members of the club. We won't even have a vote in their decision.

What it has to do with us is that we decided to host the agencies and then held a referendum on leaving. If we considered our membership to be a temporary affair, we shouldn't have bid to host EU agencies.

What are the details of the leases on the buildings?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

With 24% leads for the Tories, I'd hate for Lucy Powell to lose her seat.

She's special and needs to be in Parliament.

Strangely-alluring special, or short-bus special?

She thought the EdStone was a brilliant idea special.

And that just because the statements were carved into stone didn't mean they were, metaphorically, set in stone.

Patrick said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

With 24% leads for the Tories, I'd hate for Lucy Powell to lose her seat.

She's special and needs to be in Parliament.

Strangely-alluring special, or short-bus special?

She thought the EdStone was a brilliant idea special.

Am I being slow? You're voting for her becasue she's a window-licker, but a Labour window-licker and having window-lickers is damaging to Labour? Fair dinkum!

I think that it may be because an MP window-licking gets more attention than an ex-MP window-licking. Hence it is more likely that we get to see it.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/election_data/status/855082772540600321

Is that the whiff of panic from the Hard Left that I smell in the spring air?

Anorak said:

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

She thought the EdStone was a brilliant idea special.

"Just because they are carved on a tablet, doesn't mean they are written in stone..."

Holy shit, she actually said that:
https://leftfootforward.org/2015/05/heres-what-lucy-powell-really-said-about-labours-edstone/

What's fantastic about it is the piece says 'this misrepresentation' will be in the papers, criticising that, but what she said was still epically stupid, and the context, of what perhaps she was trying to say, doesn't really help.

Many politician flubs get called 'car crash' like or embarrassing - Powell's actually lived up to that hype, for once.

I have always assumed she must be great at the other aspects of her job, otherwise putting her into that position made no sense.

JackW said:

malcolmg said:

Given your background Jack, can you advise on good books on the Cause and the Risings

At the exchange rate of one Ayrshire Turnip (AT) to the £, I recommend the following :

The Jacobite Cause - Bruce Lenham - AT3
The 45 - Stuart Reid - AT10
1715 - Daniel Szechi - AT20
Inglorious Rebellion 1708, 1715 and 1719 - Sinclair-Stevenson - AT5

The 1715 is more difficult to find but the others are usually available from ebay at the above prices. Some sellers may not accept root vegetables as payment - shocking I know !!

Cheers Jack

Difficult seats to predict:

Leeds North East
York Central
Eastbourne
St Ives
Edinburgh South
Sutton & Cheam
Newport West

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Emmanuel Macron last matched at 1.76, Francois Fillon last matched at 5.2, Marine Le Pen last matched at 5.3, Jean-Luc Mélenchon last matched at 19.

Reassuring.

ThreeQuidder said:

Apologies if I missed this being retweeted earlier...

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/855046335111843841

Now that is genuinely a funny situation. Almost no one will notice or care, but just plain funny.

Genuinely don't see why his suspension has not been resolved one way or another already in any case.

Beverley_C said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Important hairdresser anecdote:
my mother has informed me her hairdresser was thinking of voting Labour, saw Corbyn on the TV, and has decided he just can't.

Contrary to my expectations, both she (and hairdresser) approve of the early election.

I am really really struggling with this idea that the public seem super keen to get stuck into a GE.

Maybe the public are intending to pull a spectacular one on the pollsters / establishment?

Approving of something occurring doesn't imply you will be involved. I am happy for the Eurovision Song Contest to happen but I rarely actually watch it.

Mr. JS, fake news?

ThreeQuidder said:

Apologies if I missed this being retweeted earlier...

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/855046335111843841

They cannot be serious.

They ought to remember what happened when Athenians tried something similar with Alcibiades.

Pulpstar said:

Even Money for Bermondsey and Old Southwark Lib Dems.

I would back that, and simultaneously sell the LDs at 31.

S&OB is one of the most pro-Remain seats in the country, it is demographically moving (slowly) away from Labour, and it is one of the smaller Labour leads over the LibDems.

You will probably win both bets, and it seems to me extremely unlikely the LDs could get to 31 seats without picking up S&OB along the way.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sure, but we are not asking to keep the bits we like

ROFLMAO

"Please, please, please keep the headquarters of the club we just left here, please..."

The issue isn't whether the agencies stay here, it's whether we have to pay costs if the EU27 (not the UK) decide to move them. What on earth have any such costs to do with us? We won't be members of the club. We won't even have a vote in their decision.

What it has to do with us is that we decided to host the agencies and then held a referendum on leaving. If we considered our membership to be a temporary affair, we shouldn't have bid to host EU agencies.

There's will be a haggle and a figure will be arrived at. That figure will be closer to €60 billion than €6 billion. There's a lot of other stuff to sort out, including residence issues for EU citizens and, possibly new, an EU requirement that anything that relates to the EU-UK relationship will be adjudicated by the ECJ on EU law, including any future trade agreement, transition arrangements and the Article 50 withdrawal agreement itself. Could be tricky. Then there will be an outline discussion of a potential FTA for after Brexit and a possible circumscribed and time-limited transition arrangement.

We could walk away, but I don't think we will, as we don't have a better alternative. In that case it will be pretty much as the negotiation guidelines have it.

The main thing that comes through is a complete lack of trust. The EU clearly doesn't trust our government as far as it can throw it. I don't think Mrs May and her sidekicks have done a good job of building trust.

stodge said:

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

kle4 said:

Should say that my Tory voting, but considering going LD acquaintance was also uncertain because they'd read Tim Farron thinks homosexuality is sinful - seems like they still need to get ahead of that whole issue and clarify his position some more, or it might cost a few crucial votes.

Straight out the Tory Scumbag`s Handbook of Dirty Tricks, Mr Kle, following on from the baying pack of Tory MPs in the House of Commons yesterday. Keep repeating it often enough, and people will come to believe it.

The Lib Dems would know all about dirty tricks.

Farron's views on homosexuality are absolutely relevant as the leader of a liberal party.

Seriously, David ?

Tim is a committed Christian and that's fair enough and clearly you could argue there's more than one line in the Bible (the one I'm thinking of is somewhere in Leviticus) that opposes gay sex.

However, until and unless that becomes part of LD policy and politics, I really don't care. Many politicians, including those Conservatives who supported Section 28, have been on a personal journey and I respect all who have done so. Tim's parliamentary record isn't perfect but his personal beliefs (whatever they are) only become an issue when and if they become part of his politics and if he tries to inculcate them into party policy.

He hasn't to my knowledge. The Party stands full square in support of the LGBT community and all this is a bit of media obfuscation. Should we not hold Theresa May to the same standard ?

You can hold all leaders to the same standard. Farron gave an answer this week though; it's not like trawling up ancient history.

GIN1138 said:

Message to OGH

Bring back "Tim" "RodFromCrosby" and "Plato" for the next seven weeks!

+1

GIN1138 said:

AndyJS said:

GIN1138 said:

Message to OGH

Bring back "Tim" "RodFromCrosby" and "Plato" for the next seven weeks!

I was going to suggest the same thing.

They can be rebanned afterwards but we need to keep the "entertainment" levels up for the next seven weeks...

I didn't think our timmy was banned. Wasn't it to do with someone posting his real name/address (which was pretty despicable).

I think Rod is probably very busy fighting his computer which is currently saying No everytime he requests a new prediction based on the latest set of polling!!!!

MarkHopkins said:

You are so right. All we have to do now is decide where we will sign the surrender document.

Maastricht...

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sure, but we are not asking to keep the bits we like

ROFLMAO

"Please, please, please keep the headquarters of the club we just left here, please..."

The issue isn't whether the agencies stay here, it's whether we have to pay costs if the EU27 (not the UK) decide to move them. What on earth have any such costs to do with us? We won't be members of the club. We won't even have a vote in their decision.

What it has to do with us is that we decided to host the agencies and then held a referendum on leaving. If we considered our membership to be a temporary affair, we shouldn't have bid to host EU agencies.

There's will be a haggle and a figure will be arrived at. That figure will be closer to €60 billion than €6 billion. There's a lot of other stuff to sort out, including residence issues for EU citizens and, possibly new, an EU requirement that anything that relates to the EU-UK relationship will be adjudicated by the ECJ on EU law, including any future trade agreement, transition arrangements and the Article 50 withdrawal agreement itself. Could be tricky. Then there will be an outline discussion of a potential FTA for after Brexit and a possible circumscribed and time-limited transition arrangement.

We could walk away, but I don't think we will, as we don't have a better alternative. In that case it will be pretty much as the negotiation guidelines have it.

The main thing that comes through is a complete lack of trust. The EU clearly doesn't trust our government as far as it can throw it. I don't think Mrs May and her sidekicks have done a good job of building trust.

"building trust"

funny how it seems to be onesided

which of us could pick fault with those paragons of virtue Juncker, Merkel and Hollande who have done so much to ensure we stay in the EU.

MarkHopkins said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sure, but we are not asking to keep the bits we like

ROFLMAO

"Please, please, please keep the headquarters of the club we just left here, please..."

The issue isn't whether the agencies stay here, it's whether we have to pay costs if the EU27 (not the UK) decide to move them. What on earth have any such costs to do with us? We won't be members of the club. We won't even have a vote in their decision.

What it has to do with us is that we decided to host the agencies and then held a referendum on leaving. If we considered our membership to be a temporary affair, we shouldn't have bid to host EU agencies.

There's will be a haggle and a figure will be arrived at. That figure will be closer to €60 billion than €6 billion. There's a lot of other stuff to sort out, including residence issues for EU citizens and, possibly new, an EU requirement that anything that relates to the EU-UK relationship will be adjudicated by the ECJ on EU law, including any future trade agreement, transition arrangements and the Article 50 withdrawal agreement itself. Could be tricky. Then there will be an outline discussion of a potential FTA for after Brexit and a possible circumscribed and time-limited transition arrangement.

We could walk away, but I don't think we will, as we don't have a better alternative. In that case it will be pretty much as the negotiation guidelines have it.

The main thing that comes through is a complete lack of trust. The EU clearly doesn't trust our government as far as it can throw it. I don't think Mrs May and her sidekicks have done a good job of building trust.

You are so right. All we have to do now is decide where we will sign the surrender document.

That's your term for it. Do you think we will?

Anorak said:

GIN1138 said:

AndyJS said:

GIN1138 said:

Message to OGH

Bring back "Tim" "RodFromCrosby" and "Plato" for the next seven weeks!

I was going to suggest the same thing.

They can be rebanned afterwards but we need to keep the "entertainment" levels up for the next seven weeks...

I didn't think our timmy was banned. Wasn't it to do with someone posting his real name/address (which was pretty despicable).

I think something like that happened. I had a few weeks away from PB due to illness and when I returned Tim had "departed"

Scott_P said:

MarkHopkins said:

You are so right. All we have to do now is decide where we will sign the surrender document.

Maastricht...

Lueneburg Heath where they signed the last time.

Then we can re integrate Hannover.

SeanT said:

Anorak said:

GIN1138 said:

They can be rebanned afterwards but we need to keep the "entertainment" levels up for the next seven weeks...

I didn't think our timmy was banned. Wasn't it to do with someone posting his real name/address (which was pretty despicable).

It was me. But I didn't dox him. His true identity address was revealed by someone else, weeks before, then when he was winding me up with personal remarks about some stuff I said on Twitter, I riled him back with a link to his name on a news item.

He quit.

He could be a mean son-of-a-bitch but I'd welcome him back, because he was also acute and sometimes very funny.

Rod Crosby is also missed. But this is not my site.

Still somewhat out of order, if you don't mind me saying. Not sure how his quitting addressed the issue, tho.

Beverley_C said:

stodge said:

Tim is a committed Christian and that's fair enough and clearly you could argue there's more than one line in the Bible (the one I'm thinking of is somewhere in Leviticus) that opposes gay sex.

What???

Leviticus also sets out the rules for keeping slaves, death as a punishment for blasphemy and outlaws the slaughter of animals outside of Temples.

Can we expect abbatoir closure, slavery and stoning in the Lib Dem manifesto?

Would make it more interesting, that is for sure.

FF43 said:

Alanbrooke said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sure, but we are not asking to keep the bits we like

ROFLMAO

"Please, please, please keep the headquarters of the club we just left here, please..."

The issue isn't whether the agencies stay here, it's whether we have to pay costs if the EU27 (not the UK) decide to move them. What on earth have any such costs to do with us? We won't be members of the club. We won't even have a vote in their decision.

What it has to do with us is that we decided to host the agencies and then held a referendum on leaving. If we considered our membership to be a temporary affair, we shouldn't have bid to host EU agencies.

There's will be a haggle and a figure will be arrived at. That figure will be closer to €60 billion than €6 billion. There's a lot of other stuff to sort out, including residence issues for EU citizens and, possibly new, an EU requirement that anything that relates to the EU-UK relationship will be adjudicated by the ECJ on EU law, including any future trade agreement, transition arrangements and the Article 50 withdrawal agreement itself. Could be tricky. Then there will be an outline discussion of a potential FTA for after Brexit and a possible circumscribed and time-limited transition arrangement.

We could walk away, but I don't think we will, as we don't have a better alternative. In that case it will be pretty much as the negotiation guidelines have it.

The main thing that comes through is a complete lack of trust. The EU clearly doesn't trust our government as far as it can throw it. I don't think Mrs May and her sidekicks have done a good job of building trust.

"building trust"

funny how it seems to be onesided

which of us could pick fault with those paragons of virtue Juncker, Merkel and Hollande who have done so much to ensure we stay in the EU.

Possibly so. We're the ones leaving and we might expect Theresa May to want Brexit to be the success she claimed it would be. The onus is surely on her to reach out?

Is it ?

It takes two to tango and the people who got us out have all departed. The ones who forced us out are still there

Beverley_C said:

stodge said:

Tim is a committed Christian and that's fair enough and clearly you could argue there's more than one line in the Bible (the one I'm thinking of is somewhere in Leviticus) that opposes gay sex.

What???

Leviticus also sets out the rules for keeping slaves, death as a punishment for blasphemy and outlaws the slaughter of animals outside of Temples.

Can we expect abbatoir closure, slavery and stoning in the Lib Dem manifesto?

possibly in Rusholme

NEW THREAD

GIN1138 said:

Message to OGH

Bring back "Tim" "RodFromCrosby" and "Plato" for the next seven weeks!

You're making the basic assumption that they'd be prepared to return, which I very much doubt. Life moves on, especially in the world of blogging

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

Alanbrooke said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sure, but we are not asking to keep the bits we like

ROFLMAO

"Please, please, please keep the headquarters of the club we just left here, please..."

The issue isn't whether the agencies stay here, it's whether we have to pay costs if the EU27 (not the UK) decide to move them. What on earth have any such costs to do with us? We won't be members of the club. We won't even have a vote in their decision.

What it has to do with us is that we decided to host the agencies and then held a referendum on leaving. If we considered our membership to be a temporary affair, we shouldn't have bid to host EU agencies.

There's will be a haggle and a figure will be arrived at. That figure will be closer to €60 billion than €6 billion. There's a lot of other stuff to sort out, including residence issues for EU citizens and, possibly new, an EU requirement that anything that relates to the EU-UK relationship will be adjudicated by the ECJ on EU law, including any future trade agreement, transition arrangements and the Article 50 withdrawal agreement itself. Could be tricky. Then there will be an outline discussion of a potential FTA for after Brexit and a possible circumscribed and time-limited transition arrangement.

We could walk away, but I don't think we will, as we don't have a better alternative. In that case it will be pretty much as the negotiation guidelines have it.

The main thing that comes through is a complete lack of trust. The EU clearly doesn't trust our government as far as it can throw it. I don't think Mrs May and her sidekicks have done a good job of building trust.

"building trust"

funny how it seems to be onesided

which of us could pick fault with those paragons of virtue Juncker, Merkel and Hollande who have done so much to ensure we stay in the EU.

Possibly so. We're the ones leaving and we might expect Theresa May to want Brexit to be the success she claimed it would be. The onus is surely on her to reach out?

I think her Achilles heel is a slight inferiority complex vis a vis Cameron. She wants to show she's a superior negotiator which necessitates aiming for a theatrical 'victory' in Brussels.

guffaw

Camerons crap EU negotiation skills were only exceeded by Blairs

malcolmg said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Scott_P said:

ThreeQuidder said:

None. They could choose to not relocate their agencies if they wanted.

Brexit means Brexit...

You won. Suck it up!

It's madness for anyone to think that there won't be a final bill for us to exit the EU. It's also madness for the EU to pad out that bill. It might sound tough, and I'm sure you've wet your pants over it, but it's only going to be counter productive, as is any talk of us walking away without paying anything.

TFS, UK will pay either way , and bill will be more than we pay now for sure. We have morons negotiating for us.

Given that the most the EU are asking for is equivalent to 3 years gross contributions it is physically impossible for us to pay more than we do now unless we rejoin within 3 years.

Floater said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Scott_P said:

ThreeQuidder said:

That will, quite rightly, be HMG's opening negotiating position.

"We're leaving" is not a negotiation.

If this really is the standard of Brexit thinking we are even more fcked than it looked so far.

Our negotiating team are far cleverer than you are showing yourself to be.

And I don't have a particularly high opinion of them.

Poor old Scott has gone slightly unhinged post referendum.

He is just finding his inner SNP, transforming from a Tory caterpillar into a beautiful SNP butterfly

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sure, but we are not asking to keep the bits we like

ROFLMAO

"Please, please, please keep the headquarters of the club we just left here, please..."

The issue isn't whether the agencies stay here, it's whether we have to pay costs if the EU27 (not the UK) decide to move them. What on earth have any such costs to do with us? We won't be members of the club. We won't even have a vote in their decision.

What it has to do with us is that we decided to host the agencies and then held a referendum on leaving. If we considered our membership to be a temporary affair, we shouldn't have bid to host EU agencies.

There's will be a haggle and a figure will be arrived at. That figure will be closer to €60 billion than €6 billion. There's a lot of other stuff to sort out, including residence issues for EU citizens and, possibly new, an EU requirement that anything that relates to the EU-UK relationship will be adjudicated by the ECJ on EU law, including any future trade agreement, transition arrangements and the Article 50 withdrawal agreement itself. Could be tricky. Then there will be an outline discussion of a potential FTA for after Brexit and a possible circumscribed and time-limited transition arrangement.

We could walk away, but I don't think we will, as we don't have a better alternative. In that case it will be pretty much as the negotiation guidelines have it.

The main thing that comes through is a complete lack of trust. The EU clearly doesn't trust our government as far as it can throw it. I don't think Mrs May and her sidekicks have done a good job of building trust.

There is a stunning lack of understanding exhibited by you here on how international treaties and agreements work. Trade agreements are never adjudicated by just the courts on one side and in the case of disputes it will go to international arbitration not the ECJ.

Obviously Brexit will not necessarily be all plain sailing but the sort of ill informed wishful thinking from the Remoaners really is laughable.

MarqueeMark said:

GIN1138 said:

Message to OGH

Bring back "Tim" "RodFromCrosby" and "Plato" for the next seven weeks!

+1

+2

And IoS and particularly Socrates. Both very much missed.

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sure, but we are not asking to keep the bits we like

ROFLMAO

"Please, please, please keep the headquarters of the club we just left here, please..."

The issue isn't whether the agencies stay here, it's whether we have to pay costs if the EU27 (not the UK) decide to move them. What on earth have any such costs to do with us? We won't be members of the club. We won't even have a vote in their decision.

What it has to do with us is that we decided to host the agencies and then held a referendum on leaving. If we considered our membership to be a temporary affair, we shouldn't have bid to host EU agencies.

There's will be a haggle and a figure will be arrived at. That figure will be closer to €60 billion than €6 billion. There's a lot of other stuff to sort out, including residence issues for EU citizens and, possibly new, an EU requirement that anything that relates to the EU-UK relationship will be adjudicated by the ECJ on EU law, including any future trade agreement, transition arrangements and the Article 50 withdrawal agreement itself. Could be tricky. Then there will be an outline discussion of a potential FTA for after Brexit and a possible circumscribed and time-limited transition arrangement.

We could walk away, but I don't think we will, as we don't have a better alternative. In that case it will be pretty much as the negotiation guidelines have it.

The main thing that comes through is a complete lack of trust. The EU clearly doesn't trust our government as far as it can throw it. I don't think Mrs May and her sidekicks have done a good job of building trust.

There is a stunning lack of understanding exhibited by you here on how international treaties and agreements work. Trade agreements are never adjudicated by just the courts on one side and in the case of disputes it will go to international arbitration not the ECJ.

Obviously Brexit will not necessarily be all plain sailing but the sort of ill informed wishful thinking from the Remoaners really is laughable.

I am recapping the EU guidelines for the A50 negotiations here. We will see whether they make them stick. I think they will because they look to have it pretty locked down and we won't walk away, as we don't have a better alternative.