rkrkrk said:

Seems like Don Jr was told they had the emails and so decided to publish them himself.
Removes a level of deniability... But maybe not the dumbest move? Onto the front foot. Can claim being open about the affair.

It would have been a story in the "failing NY Times" that Trump would dismiss as fake news.

Now it's an email proof.

Numpty

Scott_P said:

rkrkrk said:

Seems like Don Jr was told they had the emails and so decided to publish them himself.
Removes a level of deniability... But maybe not the dumbest move? Onto the front foot. Can claim being open about the affair.

It would have been a story in the "failing NY Times" that Trump would dismiss as fake news.

Now it's an email proof.

Numpty

Hmm... That's true.
Maybe in a weeks time he will claim his Twitter account was hacked.

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David_Evershed said:

It is strange that it was the ABC1 group that were taken in by the offer of free stuff and a magic money tree in the Labour manifesto - not the C2 DE group.

Is this poor numeracy amongst the professional class the result of poor education during the Blair years?

The Conservatives have trashed their own reputation for sober government. Once they had done that, why wouldn't people vote for what they most liked the sound of, regardless of the cost?

Because the IMF looms when governments can no longer borrow in the debt markets?

Once the Conservatives had decided to pursue extreme Brexit

Define 'extreme Brexit'

Summed up in two Prime Ministerial phrases:

"No deal is better than a bad deal"
"Citizens of nowhere"

Cop out - what does not extreme Brexit look like?

It means accepting that compromise is going to be essential and being welcoming to those with outlooks that differ from Mrs May's bumpkinocracy rather than stigmatising them.

So you can't describe it.....thanks for clearing that up.

I'm sorry that you're unable to read. I wouldn't be flaunting that though if I were you.

I'm sorry that you can't make an argument or describe a scenario that isn't 'extreme Brexit' - your loss, not mine.

I described a scenario that isn't extreme Brexit. It's your loss if you're too partisan or too stupid to read.

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

I disagree. The positions on citizens' rights are quite far apart. It doesn't mean they won't be bridged.

the UK is essentially offering no guarantees at all.

And the EU is demanding extra-territorial jurisdiction and superior rights for EU citizens over UK citizens.

But there are quite a lot of British citizens working in the EU who will be worse off.

Worse off than EU citizens living in the UK?

https://twitter.com/ExcelPope/status/884756424424906753

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David_Evershed said:

It is strange that it was the ABC1 group that were taken in by the offer of free stuff and a magic money tree in the Labour manifesto - not the C2 DE group.

Is this poor numeracy amongst the professional class the result of poor education during the Blair years?

The Conservatives have trashed their own reputation for sober government. Once they had done that, why wouldn't people vote for what they most liked the sound of, regardless of the cost?

Because the IMF looms when governments can no longer borrow in the debt markets?

Once the Conservatives had decided to pursue extreme Brexit

Define 'extreme Brexit'

Summed up in two Prime Ministerial phrases:

"No deal is better than a bad deal"
"Citizens of nowhere"

Cop out - what does not extreme Brexit look like?

It means accepting that compromise is going to be essential and being welcoming to those with outlooks that differ from Mrs May's bumpkinocracy rather than stigmatising them.

So you can't describe it.....thanks for clearing that up.

I'm sorry that you're unable to read. I wouldn't be flaunting that though if I were you.

I'm sorry that you can't make an argument or describe a scenario that isn't 'extreme Brexit' - your loss, not mine.

I described a scenario that isn't extreme Brexit. It's your loss if you're too partisan or too stupid to read.

What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David_Evershed said:

It is strange that it was the ABC1 group that were taken in by the offer of free stuff and a magic money tree in the Labour manifesto - not the C2 DE group.

Is this poor numeracy amongst the professional class the result of poor education during the Blair years?

The Conservatives have trashed their own reputation for sober government. Once they had done that, why wouldn't people vote for what they most liked the sound of, regardless of the cost?

Because the IMF looms when governments can no longer borrow in the debt markets?

Once the Conservatives had decided to pursue extreme Brexit

Define 'extreme Brexit'

Summed up in two Prime Ministerial phrases:

"No deal is better than a bad deal"
"Citizens of nowhere"

Cop out - what does not extreme Brexit look like?

It means accepting that compromise is going to be essential and being welcoming to those with outlooks that differ from Mrs May's bumpkinocracy rather than stigmatising them.

So you can't describe it.....thanks for clearing that up.

I'm sorry that you're unable to read. I wouldn't be flaunting that though if I were you.

I'm sorry that you can't make an argument or describe a scenario that isn't 'extreme Brexit' - your loss, not mine.

I described a scenario that isn't extreme Brexit. It's your loss if you're too partisan or too stupid to read.

I must have missed you description of 'single market (or no), customs union (or no) freedom of movement (or no), ECJ jurisdiction (or no) when all I read were soundbites you claim to despise.

Did you type it in invisible ink?

Morris_Dancer said:

King Cole, didn't get much, the suggestion was the short notice was for security reasons, although being a bit rubbish at promotion can't be ruled out.

There’s a lot of backroom time been spent on it.

GeoffM said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

I disagree. The positions on citizens' rights are quite far apart. It doesn't mean they won't be bridged.

the UK is essentially offering no guarantees at all.

And the EU is demanding extra-territorial jurisdiction and superior rights for EU citizens over UK citizens.

But there are quite a lot of British citizens working in the EU who will be worse off.

Worse off than EU citizens living in the UK?

Apparently. People who live in UK but do contract work in the EU.

That includes me.
How, specifically?

Back of the queue apparently, in future, for work.

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David_Evershed said:

It is strange that it was the ABC1 group that were taken in by the offer of free stuff and a magic money tree in the Labour manifesto - not the C2 DE group.

Is this poor numeracy amongst the professional class the result of poor education during the Blair years?

The Conservatives have trashed their own reputation for sober government. Once they had done that, why wouldn't people vote for what they most liked the sound of, regardless of the cost?

Because the IMF looms when governments can no longer borrow in the debt markets?

Once the Conservatives had decided to pursue extreme Brexit

Define 'extreme Brexit'

Summed up in two Prime Ministerial phrases:

"No deal is better than a bad deal"
"Citizens of nowhere"

Cop out - what does not extreme Brexit look like?

It means accepting that compromise is going to be essential and being welcoming to those with outlooks that differ from Mrs May's bumpkinocracy rather than stigmatising them.

So you can't describe it.....thanks for clearing that up.

I'm sorry that you're unable to read. I wouldn't be flaunting that though if I were you.

I'm sorry that you can't make an argument or describe a scenario that isn't 'extreme Brexit' - your loss, not mine.

I described a scenario that isn't extreme Brexit. It's your loss if you're too partisan or too stupid to read.

What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?

It means 'compromising'.....which both sides are....

RobD said:

What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?

If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.

But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.

In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.

GeoffM said:

CarlottaVance said:

Donald Trump Jr's first call after he was allegedly offered information on Hillary Clinton by a Russia-linked lawyer should have been to the FBI, a former White House ethics lawyer has said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer-meeting-ex-bush-ethics-lawyer-loyal-american-called-fbi-hilary-a7835211.html

LOLOLOL all you ever hear about Richard Painter is the "ethics lawyer" tag and not what he actually does for a living.

This is the full resume of the bloke and why he can't be taken seriously:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/07/stop-taking-richard-painter-seriously-given-history-of-outlandish-statements-and-treason-accusations/

The speed at which the alt-right can get a hatchet job out is impressive.
The reality is that he worked for George Bush Jr as an ethic lawyer and is a lifelong republican.

https://twitter.com/kasie/status/884815201433944065

Trans: Pence wants to take over when Trump is impeached

About to try walking the dog with a toe that has decided to hurt in a strange way.

Didn't see much in the markets that appealed. Perhaps the most intriguing was Ricciardo podium 3.5. He's had his best run of podium finishes in a row (five consecutive).

Anyway, I'm off.

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

I disagree. The positions on citizens' rights are quite far apart. It doesn't mean they won't be bridged.

the UK is essentially offering no guarantees at all.

And the EU is demanding extra-territorial jurisdiction and superior rights for EU citizens over UK citizens.

The UK proposal is serious and workable. It's the only serious bit of work the government has done on Brexit in one year. It is not especially generous however - unless we throw people out on their ear who have made their homes and worked here for decades, we would have to offer something similar. It is also less than what the EU proposes for both EU and UK citizens in their respective countries of residence. The EU could say, OK we accept your proposal, there could be a haggle to meet in the middle or they could say, sorry, no deal.

There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.

How is extra-territorial jurisdiction supposed to work? Do we have two levels of crime, say, sometimes it's a crime but not if it's perpetrated by an EU citizen? Sort of like Diplomatic privilege?

Good evening, everyone.

https://twitter.com/reuters/status/884819752404832257

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.

If there is going to be a level playing field, the same law has to be applied in the same way across the UK and the EU. If we also accept the reality that the EU is not going to change the way it does things simply to accommodate the UK, the law will be the EU law that applies at the time and which the UK will in future have no say in drafting and the law will be applied according to ECJ judgments. Now the actual court might be a UK or third party one, but it will be one that is explicitly implementing EU law according to ECJ judgement.

There is a real problem of sovereignty and jurisdiction.

It's also why, despite the friendly rhetoric, Brexit is intellectually incompatible with wanting the EU to succeed. Brexit only makes sense if the EU itself disintegrates, or if we don't need a 'deep and special partnership' with our continental neighbours.

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.

If there is going to be a level playing field, the same law has to be applied in the same way across the UK and the EU.

The UK position so far is we don't need any supranational legal recourse to regulate the agreements. The EU won't accept that.

So the UK Supreme Court should decide on cases of British Citizens resident in Spain, for example?

CarlottaVance said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.

If there is going to be a level playing field, the same law has to be applied in the same way across the UK and the EU.

The UK position so far is we don't need any supranational legal recourse to regulate the agreements. The EU won't accept that.

So the UK Supreme Court should decide on cases of British Citizens resident in Spain, for example?

No. You didn't read what I wrote.

RoyalBlue said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?

If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.

But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.

In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.

In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.

It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

You can't even answer 'Single Market' - you're the one who's hiding behind fatuous slogans.

I've given a much longer answer which touched on that.

'Touched on' = 'vacuous platitudes'

FF43 said:

AnneJGP said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

I disagree. The positions on citizens' rights are quite far apart. It doesn't mean they won't be bridged.

the UK is essentially offering no guarantees at all.

And the EU is demanding extra-territorial jurisdiction and superior rights for EU citizens over UK citizens.

The UK proposal is serious and workable. It's the only serious bit of work the government has done on Brexit in one year. It is not especially generous however - unless we throw people out on their ear who have made their homes and worked here for decades, we would have to offer something similar. It is also less than what the EU proposes for both EU and UK citizens in their respective countries of residence. The EU could say, OK we accept your proposal, there could be a haggle to meet in the middle or they could say, sorry, no deal.

There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.

How is extra-territorial jurisdiction supposed to work? Do we have two levels of crime, say, sometimes it's a crime but not if it's perpetrated by an EU citizen? Sort of like Diplomatic privilege?

Good evening, everyone.

An EU citizen in the UK would not be able to apply to a court for a judgement on the terms of the EU settled status agreement as they apply to him under current UK proposals.

Wouldn't they be able to apply to the UK Supreme Court?

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

There will be plenty more calls by the EU for effective extra-territorial jurisdiction. It's a problem, but one that's not going away.

If there is going to be a level playing field, the same law has to be applied in the same way across the UK and the EU. If we also accept the reality that the EU is not going to change the way it does things simply to accommodate the UK, the law will be the EU law that applies at the time and which the UK will in future have no say in drafting and the law will be applied according to ECJ judgments. Now the actual court might be a UK or third party one, but it will be one that is explicitly implementing EU law according to ECJ judgement.

There is a real problem of sovereignty and jurisdiction.

It's also why, despite the friendly rhetoric, Brexit is intellectually incompatible with wanting the EU to succeed. Brexit only makes sense if the EU itself disintegrates, or if we don't need a 'deep and special partnership' with our continental neighbours.

That is so true. If the EU disintegrates into a pile of dust, it might be a problem in itself, but the UK's specific problems go away. We would be very smug at having got out first.

Which is why so many people hope/expect it will happen. But as the EU almost certainly won't go away in the near future, we have a problem. A problem that can only be solved by full membership of the EU. (I know I am arguing for the EEA in the circumstances we are in, but it isn't really a solution in that sense)

RoyalBlue said:

In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.

The frequency with which proponents of CANZUK refer to 'kith and kin' suggests that blood ties aren't far from the mind.

CarlottaVance said:

Scott_P said:

Oops

https://twitter.com/glasgowalbum/status/884780316375830530

Mrs May's fault, obviously....

No.....The Torys fault obv.

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Do all the youngsters who voted Labour know that Corbyn wants to shut down Uber?

If the Conservatives were operating a functioning government, it would be the only topic of discussion on social media today.

Uber will be fine the places that will shut down first are small family run minicab firms who also hire their workers on a self employed basis.

OldKingCole said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

Danny565 said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

One point to note. For months in advance of the general election, the Conservatives' performance in local by-elections had been decidedly ho-hum. This was dismissed as irrelevant by those pbers who were uber-loyalist to the blue cause. But it seems to have foreshadowed a lack of enthusiasm for the Conservative cause that proved to be important when their campaign was put under strain.

But then came Copeland, and the Conservatives' local by-election performance was transformed, and the local elections in May were excellent.

Even if leads of 20% were froth, I think the Conservatives really were leading by double digits at the start of the campaign, and then threw it away.

The curious thing about the locals vs the GE, to me, was that the LDs did very well in vote share in the locals, but disastrously in terms of seats. In the GE, that was reversed: they did disastrously in terms of vote share, but very well in terms of seats.

12 seats is a good return for 7.6%, but it's still pretty dismal.

The number of realistic targets for the Lib Dems has fallen. Some of the Tory majorities in seats that were recently held by the Lib Dems, or were very marginal, are now enormous,

Hell, the LibDems aren't even the challengers in a lot of those seats anymore.

I was astonished in the last thread to see that Labour are now second in Newton Abbot.

As well as West Devon, Totnes, St. Austell, SE Cornwall, Camborne.

I suspect that’s the EU effect. The SW, in spite of having some massive grants was very anti EU.
Whether that will last or whether we’ve seen a permanent shift I’ll leave others to judge.

The EU as a whole is a net contributor to EU coffers.

Which train were you on when you wrote that? Obviously a very shaky one!

I was just trying to see if you were alert

What, of course, I should have said is:

The UK as a whole is a net contributor to EU coffers

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/greekanalyst/status/884808594541223940

My wife was at Penn at the same time as Trump Jr and tells me he was estranged from his father at the time.

nunuone said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?

If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.

But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.

In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.

In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.

It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox

I wouldn't want a political union with Alabama or Louisiana thanks.

And I'm sure they wouldn't want one with us.

Now I think you're just being racist

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_P said:

David_Evershed said:

Yes, but what do they mean by that?

The end of the British Grand Prix at Silverstone, unless there is a new deal

Yes, Silverstone are desperate to get themselves out of Ecclestone's handcuffs with an annual 5% escalator making the race unprofitable to stage.

There's also credible rumours around of a London consortium proposing the staging of a street race in the Docklands area.

For these in central London tomorrow, there will an F1 exhibition in Trafalgar Square, with the cars running down Whitehall in the evening which is definitely going to be worth watching.

I just read a short article in the Standard on the possible "east London" Grand Prix. Not sure if it's online.

There is this in The Mirror:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula-1/f1-considering-east-london-race-10774343

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/884826906255929344

@JamesTapsfield: Utterly ridiculous https://twitter.com/kenloachsixteen/status/884759093336047616

nunu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

nunuone said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?

If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.

But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.

In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.

In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.

It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox

I wouldn't want a political union with Alabama or Louisiana thanks.

And I'm sure they wouldn't want one with us.

Now I think you're just being racist

er.....no.

Many southern states still live with the legacy of white supremacist policy.

In Florida for example a third of the black population are disenfranchised. Disgusting.

In the U.K we get outraged bu an MP saying an outdated phrase with racist language there they don't bat an eyelid at the legacy of continued blatant black discrimination throughout every sphere of life. From the justice system to politics to economics etc.

Imagine this happened in the U.K as happend in North Carolina, today......actually don't because it wouldn't.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/

Imagine if the southern states were still part of the Commonwealth, they would have abolished slavery along with the rest of the Empire.

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures.

In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.

I agree with pretty much all of this.

Apologies for the length of my reply and in 2 parts because of it.

PART 1

But I think the "citizens of nowhere" quote has also been, to some extent, misinterpreted.

This is the relevant bit of the speech:-

"Yet within our society today, we see division and unfairness all around. Between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation. Between the wealth of London and the rest of the country.

But perhaps most of all, between the rich, the successful and the powerful - and their fellow citizens.

.......

That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.

That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.

That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.

But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.

But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.

So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…

An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…

A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…

A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…

.....This can’t go on anymore."

The examples she quotes are ones where I think the Tories do have a point - that people who are well off in this society and as a result of the hard work of all of us, of people who are much less well off, do - IMO - owe an obligation to those around us, to pay tax, to treat staff well, to contribute and not merely to treat a country as a place where you make your money without any social, legal or moral obligations to that country and the people in it.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/884826906255929344

Some highlights:

Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first

....negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single market and the Customs Union

Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union...

nunu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

nunuone said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?

If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.

But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.

In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.

ike Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox

I wouldn't want a political union with Alabama or Louisiana thanks.

And I'm sure they wouldn't want one with us.

Now I think you're just being racist

er.....no.

Many southern states still live with the legacy of white supremacist policy.

In Florida for example a third of the black population are disenfranchised. Disgusting.

In the U.K we get outraged bu an MP saying an outdated phrase with racist language there they don't bat an eyelid at the legacy of continued blatant black discrimination throughout every sphere of life. From the justice system to politics to economics etc.

Imagine this happened in the U.K as happend in North Carolina, today......actually don't because it wouldn't.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/

"In 2016, federal courts struck down many of voting restrictions and gerrymandered districts instituted by Republicans, saying they harmed racial minorities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_North_Carolina

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/884826906255929344

The Pearson markers who penalised those semicolons *really* wouldn't like Mr Corbyn's handwriting.
Requires improvement...

Danny565 said:

nunu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

nunuone said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RoyalBlue said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

What does it means in terms of the technicalities though, or is it just a perception thing?

If you're expecting a 3000 word essay on the subject, I'm not going to oblige. I've neither the time nor the interest, especially when all that the more demented partisans will do is seek to pick apart every last phrase (or simply, like @CarlottaVance, refuse to read it because they have no way of responding) and profess outrage by deliberate misconstruction.

But in short it's both tone and content. A non-extreme Brexit would be as concerned to look after existing lawful residents in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens) as to reach a new settlement on immigration for the future. It would be identifying positive ways in which the UK would continue to engage with the rest of the EU instead of seeking to stick two fingers up at it at every opportunity. It would be considering the implications for business of leaving the single market and seeking mitigation measures. It would be squelching absurd (and essentially racist) fantasies like CANZUK. It would be having sensible discussions about what immigration Britain would continue to need.

In short, it would be acting as if the country weren't afraid of the 21st century and its complexities.

In what version of reality is CANZUK racist? The White Australia policy was ditched in the 70s.

It's interesting that you've chosen to make your home in one of the least ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Europe. It's a bit like Billy Bragg praising mass immigration from Dorset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox

I wouldn't want a political union with Alabama or Louisiana thanks.

And I'm sure they wouldn't want one with us.

Now I think you're just being racist

er.....no.



Imagine this happened in the U.K as happend in North Carolina, today......actually don't because it wouldn't.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/

Are you and Nunuone connected to eachother?

Jo Konta through to the semis at Wimbledon!

Take that, PB SJWs!!!

Konta plays Venus Williams (somehow STILL around) for a place in the final.

@Cyclefree - great stuff.

Cyclefree said:

PART 2

There has, I think, been an unwelcome development in recent years of a sort of Richistan where rich people interact only with each other and treat the rest of us as somehow less important, as if money is the only thing that matters. And I think - I hope - you would agree that the value of a person is more, much more, than their wealth. Society exists and society matters. And it matters that all of us contribute to the society in which we live, not try and shut ourselves off, insulated by wealth.

This feeling that too many of the rich see themselves as a class apart from the rest is one reason why Corbyn has been as successful as he has been. He has a point that the levels of inequality and a sort of F*** You mentality to the less well off are inimical to a fair society. May correctly identified the same sickness at the heart of modern day capitalism.

Where you have a point is in criticizing the implication that if you are interested in the world beyond your borders you are somehow not a good citizen of the country you live in. That is a false dichotomy.

But it is also fair to say that there are some who seem so interested in the wider world and in being part of it and in glorying in this that they can sometimes give the very strong impression that they don't care at all about people around them, their immediate neighbours, the very people on whom they depend for their lifestyle. It's like those who emote about the poor in far off places and hold lavish charity balls for them but do nothing about paying decent wages to the cleaners in their own places of work and won't even speak to them when they see them.

There are too many Mrs Jellabys around. There are too many people who think that caring about people in this country who do not have the advantages that the likes of you and I have had is somehow being insular and provincial.

And I challenge that. Loving your neighbor is a good principle to live by. An understanding of the world can start with understanding the neighbourhood and place you live in. It's not either/or.

Many Corbynistas don't really understand how real progress is made - through commitment and hard work. They prefer to spray money around in the hope that it can be afforded. Socialism only survives in police states, opposition cannot be tolerated.