I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
On a forced choice 37% in the polls still prioritise reducing immigration even ahead of the economy, the single market or a good free trade deal.
37% would even be enough for UKIP to win most seats in the Commons if the Tories joined Labour and the LDs in backing soft Brexit or even changed course to reverse Brexit thus splitting the Remainer vote or soft Brexit vote 3 ways. The SNP of course still won most seats in June in Scotland on 37% even if the 3 Unionist parties won more MPs than in 2015.
It is possible of course to do a FTA and end free movement but not if we reverse course and stay in the single market.
" The city’s appeals court is planning to set up an English-language chamber by January 2018, so that big international companies do not have to turn to London to resolve commercial disputes."
Most contracts I negotiate I try to avoid German courts. If I have to accept them (and I'll never go outside of FaM or Munich) then I insist on English being the language of proceedings even if the law is German. That's not an uncommon approach.
This change in the courts sounds like a simplicity thing rather than anything dramatic
Something which does need to be investigated is that Treasury prediction of an immediate and severe recession after a Leave vote.
Considering that the Treasury has never managed to predict a recession which actually happened (see the 2008 Budget speech as an example) its forecast of a recession which didn't happen is a real standout.
Now how might the Treasury have produced some an inept forecast ?
Its possible that the Treasury is utterly incompetent or perhaps it produced a forecast in line with political instructions - something which I believe would be illegal.
Either way we need to know how the Treasury operates.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
This coupled with Putin’s troll army revelations, we must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting Brexit.
No. Politicians are servants, not masters, tenants not freeholders.
There is no one who can "not permit" Brexit.
Fundamentally over the last 40 years UK politicians went beyond their mandate in suborning the country to the EU. They've been smacked and are squealing like a spoilt child
This coupled with Putin’s troll army revelations, we must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting Brexit.
No. Politicians are servants, not masters, tenants not freeholders.
There is no one who can "not permit" Brexit.
Fundamentally over the last 40 years UK politicians went beyond their mandate in suborning the country to the EU. They've been smacked and are squealing like a spoilt child
Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.
And it will be seen as an excuse.
The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.
A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
Agreed. But we do not have a "sensible government" sadly. Nor is the prospect of one on the horizon.
Mr. Royale, the problem is that a departure is a stark and sudden change, like getting out of a warm bed when it's bloody freezing. Staying in is more comfortable, and the changes more slight and gradual. Like a frog, slowly boiling.
Indeed so. The Remainers know the process of Leaving is their last chance, because once we're out, and a new status quo is established, we're out for good.
And they smell blood.
The question you should ask yourself is why unreconciled Remain supporters smell blood. Any answer that doesn't involve consideration of why they remain unreconciled and the rank incompetence of the post-referendum Leave effort will get a failing grade.
I ask myself that question all the time. And I ponder answers to it.
On the topic of David Cameron marking the deck for the referendum - I agree on the leaflet. He also I think initially was tempted to be a bit sly on the question, but quite rightly the electoral commission came up with something Fair.
Given all that - why didn’t he give 16yolds the vote? Much more justifiable.
I think Will Straw said it would have been enough to swing the result if 1/4 had swung the votes of their parents or something like that.
This was strongly opposed by Leavers during discussion on the Referendum bill. They wanted, remember, to fix the franchise to give Leave the best chance and Cameron was not ready to fight that.
Do you think he would have lost that argument? I think he could easily have got Lab and SNP support to pass a bill with 16yolds voting.
The outcome would have been closer if 16 year olds had been given the vote, but it would not have changed it.
I'm not sure why 16 year olds ought to have been given the vote, though.
Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.
And it will be seen as an excuse.
The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.
A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
Agreed. But we do not have a "sensible government" sadly. Nor is the prospect of one on the horizon.
on the other hand they are negotiating with an ex partner whose approach is more in anger than sorrow
car manufacturers moan, its what they do, there has never been a point when the car manufacturers arent complaining about something, it helps them get subsidies
of all the car plants only Honda looks wobbly and thats because they have a shit model range and nothing to do with Brexit.
as for the outcry there was none when
Ford Dagenham closed Ford Southampton closed Peugeot Ryton closed LDV Birmingham closed Vauxhall Luton stopped car production Jaguar Coventry closed AGCO Coventry closed
only Rover Longbrdge had a bit of hooha and that was primarily Midlands based
this sudden concerns by remainers for manufacturing is all a bit late, you should have made a fuss when we were in the EU of WTF why are all our jobs going to Europe ?
We have had a 30 year problem with industry
Which would you prefer.
The UK's car industry in 2017 or The UK's car industry in 1987?
Yep, the single market and customs union have significantly benefited the car industry in the UK.
Ford Dagenham closed Ford Southampton closed Peugeot Ryton closed LDV Birmingham closed Vauxhall Luton stopped car production Jaguar Coventry closed AGCO Coventry closed Rover Longbridge closed
A friendless declining decrepit wreck on the fringes of Europe - that vision is close to the mark. The UK (or rather England & Wales) voted for Brexit despite the clear warnings of economic doom clearly laid out by GO et al. They were only wrong in the timing, as firms are currently hanging on hoping for a soft Brexit that seems increasingly unlikely.
I think a large number of Remainers simply don't like their fellow countrymen or their country all that much, seeing it as unsophisticated, philistine, backward and embarrassing.
This coupled with Putin’s troll army revelations, we must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting Brexit.
No. Politicians are servants, not masters, tenants not freeholders.
There is no one who can "not permit" Brexit.
Fundamentally over the last 40 years UK politicians went beyond their mandate in suborning the country to the EU. They've been smacked and are squealing like a spoilt child
Absolutely correct. And many of them are currently struggling to accept the diagnosis and the symptoms.
I'm very surprised David Herdson wrote this blogpost, rather than OGH.
The idea that a bit of grubby money about a grubby man like Aaron Banks could be used as (yet another) excuse to stop Brexit in its tracks is not only fanciful, it's extremely dangerous.
Nowhere do I say it could be used as such. What I say is that it could trigger a chain of events that results in Brexit being stopped. I also say that this is unlikely and that one stage would have to be the calling of a second referendum and that that vote would have to be carried by Remain.
The point is not that Brexit will (or should) be stopped. The former is unlikely and I am agnostic on the latter pending further evidence. The point is that the door has opened a touch.
I don't see the door opening you do, anymore than I saw mass byelections and prosecutions over election expense post GE2015, but fair enough.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
Compared to Osborne's Emergency Budget scenario to protect us from economic slump?
I am not defending Osborne. The referendum campaign was essentially two sets of wealthy, establishment Tories telling lies to the electorate.
You do Labour Leave an injustice....
Labour Leave produced excellent material that resonated with a substantial number of left wing voters. In fact, I don't think the vote would have been won without them.
So Arron Banks is a grubby little man. Nigel Farage always was a tough sell and is now an embarrassment since he started fixating about the Jews. IDS was always hopeless. Owen Paterson was outwitted by badgers. Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to reach the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Boris Johnson's parabola is now firmly in its downward phase, him having been definitively shown to be a lazy chancer. Andrea Leadsom, mother status aside, seems rated only by herself. Michael Gove is too weird, Priti Patel is too duplicitous. David Davis has gamely tried to make a go of Brexit but like Boxer the Horse is finding that blind loyalty isn't enough - sometimes he who dares loses.
Who then is the Leaver who is going to lead the Brexiteers to the promised land?
Fundamentally over the last 40 years UK politicians went beyond their mandate in suborning the country to the EU. They've been smacked and are squealing like a spoilt child
Very nicely said. Brexit in a nutshell.
And that deafening silence you can hear? That is Remainers taking responsibility for all that unwanted suborning. You'd think from them that Brexit was caused by those voting to Leave, rather than a reaction to what they have foisted upon us for forty years.
The architects of Brexit are those squealing loudest because their insidious campaign has come crashing down.
If the EU isn't interested in negotiating trade, why don't we start negotiating with the rest of the world. What will the EU do in retaliation? Fine us? They can stick that where the rest of the silly requests for money lie.
We owe them some money due. That's fair enough, but paying any figure they ask for is nonsensical.
Never quite sure what the fuss is about Brexit. Seems very just to me. Remainers will continue to move abroad as soon as they can and put their money offshore. Brexiteers will suffer the consequences of their actions in poorer pensions, closed factories and fewer opportunities.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Yes, that's probably right. It may be that the politically sustainable way to do Brexit is to do a gradual disengagement from the EU, via a gentle transition leading to an associate membership, with gradual divergence of the UK from the single market in the longer-term.
But, I fear both Leave/Remain hardliners in the UK, and the intransigence of EU, means we're all boxing ourselves into a tungsten-tipped Brexit corner.
Even though I'd like full independence, and yesterday, I'm enough of a pragmatist to be flexible on the path we take, and the compromise on the ultimate destination.
The idea that the Toru government would even consider abandoning a Brexit most of its members and voters are committed to bevause of an investigation into Leave.eu's funding, when it was not even the official Leave campaign, or alleged Russian involvement is preposterous.
Even if Brexit was abandoned Tory Leave voters would lend their votes to UKIP in droves at the next general election, probably joined by a fair few Labour Leave voters and UKIP could well end up holding the balance of power as a result.
I suppose it's always possible we could have a Corn Laws type of situation, in which some Tory Remain MP's back a minority Labour government which agreed to end Brexit.
On the topic of David Cameron marking the deck for the referendum - I agree on the leaflet. He also I think initially was tempted to be a bit sly on the question, but quite rightly the electoral commission came up with something Fair.
Given all that - why didn’t he give 16yolds the vote? Much more justifiable.
I think Will Straw said it would have been enough to swing the result if 1/4 had swung the votes of their parents or something like that.
This was strongly opposed by Leavers during discussion on the Referendum bill. They wanted, remember, to fix the franchise to give Leave the best chance and Cameron was not ready to fight that.
Wrong way round buddy
Leavers wanted to use the existing franchise for GEs
Remainders wanted to change it to benefit themselves
car manufacturers moan, its what they do, there has never been a point when the car manufacturers arent complaining about something, it helps them get subsidies
of all the car plants only Honda looks wobbly and thats because they have a shit model range and nothing to do with Brexit.
as for the outcry there was none when
Ford Dagenham closed Ford Southampton closed Peugeot Ryton closed LDV Birmingham closed Vauxhall Luton stopped car production Jaguar Coventry closed AGCO Coventry closed
only Rover Longbrdge had a bit of hooha and that was primarily Midlands based
this sudden concerns by remainers for manufacturing is all a bit late, you should have made a fuss when we were in the EU of WTF why are all our jobs going to Europe ?
We have had a 30 year problem with industry
Which would you prefer.
The UK's car industry in 2017 or The UK's car industry in 1987?
Yep, the single market and customs union have significantly benefited the car industry in the UK.
Ford Dagenham closed Ford Southampton closed Peugeot Ryton closed LDV Birmingham closed Vauxhall Luton stopped car production Jaguar Coventry closed AGCO Coventry closed Rover Longbridge closed
There's a famous saying that the NI Unionists were tuppence ha'penny looking down on tuppence.
It was a Marxist view bemoaning the fact that they wouldn't join together to overthrow capitalism. Some Remainers are the tuppence ha'penny who regard the Leavers as tuppence. Guaranteed to sow togetherness.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Yes, that's probably right. It may be that the politically sustainable way to do Brexit is to do a gradual disengagement from the EU, via a gentle transition leading to an associate membership, with gradual divergence of the UK from the single market in the longer-term.
But, I fear both Leave/Remain hardliners in the UK, and the intransigence of EU, means we're all boxing ourselves into a tungsten-tipped Brexit corner.
Even though I'd like full independence, and yesterday, I'm enough of a pragmatist to be flexible on the path we take, and the compromise on the ultimate destination.
I've always been pretty relaxed about the form that Brexit takes.
Despite Brexit, the plasterers working on our house extension here in Morley are working all day today and tomorrow too. Apparently they've so much work on they can't afford even a day off.
car manufacturers moan, its what they do, there has never been a point when the car manufacturers arent complaining about something, it helps them get subsidies
of all the car plants only Honda looks wobbly and thats because they have a shit model range and nothing to do with Brexit.
as for the outcry there was none when
Ford Dagenham closed Ford Southampton closed Peugeot Ryton closed LDV Birmingham closed Vauxhall Luton stopped car production Jaguar Coventry closed AGCO Coventry closed
only Rover Longbrdge had a bit of hooha and that was primarily Midlands based
this sudden concerns by remainers for manufacturing is all a bit late, you should have made a fuss when we were in the EU of WTF why are all our jobs going to Europe ?
We have had a 30 year problem with industry
Which would you prefer.
The UK's car industry in 2017 or The UK's car industry in 1987?
Yep, the single market and customs union have significantly benefited the car industry in the UK.
Ford Dagenham closed Ford Southampton closed Peugeot Ryton closed LDV Birmingham closed Vauxhall Luton stopped car production Jaguar Coventry closed AGCO Coventry closed Rover Longbridge closed
The car industry, not car workers.
As Robert Smithson has pointed out, vastly fewer car workers can produce the same number of cars.
If the EU isn't interested in negotiating trade, why don't we start negotiating with the rest of the world. What will the EU do in retaliation? Fine us? They can stick that where the rest of the silly requests for money lie.
We owe them some money due. That's fair enough, but paying any figure they ask for is nonsensical.
The world will not negotiate with us at any meaningful level until our relationship with the EU is finalised.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
Despite Brexit, the plasterers working on our house extension here in Morley are working all day today and tomorrow too. Apparently they've so much work on they can't afford even a day off.
Private housebuilding will probably exceed its last peak, 2008, this year.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.
And it will be seen as an excuse.
The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.
A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
You're conflating 2 separate things
We had a referendum. The decision was to Leave. To set that aside is to abbrogate democracy.
The precise mechanics - the extent to which the government takes into account the wishes of the 48% - are within the framework of democracy. The government would be perfectly within its rights - if unwise - to ignore them completely
But to ignore them entirely is exactly what the government has chosen to do. There could have been a Brexit middle ground around which most of us could have coalesced, but the May strategy has been to chase positive headlines in the Daily Mail instead. It has been a disastrous choice for the country.
My point was that is not antidemocratic although it may be poor political strategy
Yorkshire demands extreme vetting of southern immigrants.
Immigrants from the South are to undergo an ‘extreme vetting’ process to ensure they aren’t bringing softness into the county, Yorkshire has announced today.
Softness is a growing concern within the county, with reports indicating that children exposed to it are at risk of putting the heating on or wearing a vest.
Southerners are regarded by many as spreading softness, and voters are demanding government crackdown before the local culture is ‘swept away on a tide of Southern neshness’.
Migrants will be expected to pass a series of tests, including being able to convincingly say ‘lovely’ on Skegness beach in a force eight gale and sup eight pints of Tetley without spilling any.
“It’s a serious concern,” said Yorkshire spokesman Saz Williams.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
Yorkshire demands extreme vetting of southern immigrants.
Immigrants from the South are to undergo an ‘extreme vetting’ process to ensure they aren’t bringing softness into the county, Yorkshire has announced today.
Softness is a growing concern within the county, with reports indicating that children exposed to it are at risk of putting the heating on or wearing a vest.
Southerners are regarded by many as spreading softness, and voters are demanding government crackdown before the local culture is ‘swept away on a tide of Southern neshness’.
Migrants will be expected to pass a series of tests, including being able to convincingly say ‘lovely’ on Skegness beach in a force eight gale and sup eight pints of Tetley without spilling any.
“It’s a serious concern,” said Yorkshire spokesman Saz Williams.
Yorkshire demands extreme vetting of southern immigrants.
Immigrants from the South are to undergo an ‘extreme vetting’ process to ensure they aren’t bringing softness into the county, Yorkshire has announced today.
Softness is a growing concern within the county, with reports indicating that children exposed to it are at risk of putting the heating on or wearing a vest.
Southerners are regarded by many as spreading softness, and voters are demanding government crackdown before the local culture is ‘swept away on a tide of Southern neshness’.
Migrants will be expected to pass a series of tests, including being able to convincingly say ‘lovely’ on Skegness beach in a force eight gale and sup eight pints of Tetley without spilling any.
“It’s a serious concern,” said Yorkshire spokesman Saz Williams.
Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.
And it will be seen as an excuse.
The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.
A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
You're conflating 2 separate things
We had a referendum. The decision was to Leave. To set that aside is to abbrogate democracy.
The precise mechanics - the extent to which the government takes into account the wishes of the 48% - are within the framework of democracy. The government would be perfectly within its rights - if unwise - to ignore them completely
But to ignore them entirely is exactly what the government has chosen to do. There could have been a Brexit middle ground around which most of us could have coalesced, but the May strategy has been to chase positive headlines in the Daily Mail instead. It has been a disastrous choice for the country.
My point was that is not antidemocratic although it may be poor political strategy
I agree. As long as the electorate allows the Tories to put party before country it is perfectly legitimate for them to do so.
Dr. Spyn, reminds me of a few years ago when Five Live had the interesting headline that North Yorkshire had conducted a successful nuclear weapons test.
I have a confession to make. In my teens I was so cold on Skegness beach I had to put a coat on. This was early August. I may have got away with it because it was deserted.
oh dear things must be bad for Remainers, we're back to swivel eyed
As opposed to Leavers turning on their own because things are not working out in the ways anticipated!!
so youre against debate ?
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I am merely observing that prominent Leavers are now beginning to attack prominent and long-standing Leave-supporting cabinet ministers. I have no problem at all with them doing it. But there must be a reason why.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
Yorkshire demands extreme vetting of southern immigrants.
Immigrants from the South are to undergo an ‘extreme vetting’ process to ensure they aren’t bringing softness into the county, Yorkshire has announced today.
Softness is a growing concern within the county, with reports indicating that children exposed to it are at risk of putting the heating on or wearing a vest.
Southerners are regarded by many as spreading softness, and voters are demanding government crackdown before the local culture is ‘swept away on a tide of Southern neshness’.
Migrants will be expected to pass a series of tests, including being able to convincingly say ‘lovely’ on Skegness beach in a force eight gale and sup eight pints of Tetley without spilling any.
“It’s a serious concern,” said Yorkshire spokesman Saz Williams.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
oh dear things must be bad for Remainers, we're back to swivel eyed
As opposed to Leavers turning on their own because things are not working out in the ways anticipated!!
so youre against debate ?
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I am merely observing that prominent Leavers are now beginning to attack prominent and long-standing Leave-supporting cabinet ministers. I have no problem at all with them doing it. But there must be a reason why.
of course it makes sense
Leave voters are no more a homogenous voting block than Remain voters are
if people who voted Leave are having a debate of what they want what;s wrong with that ?
if only Remainers had the guts to do the same we might get a kind of national consensus rather than tedious scare mongering and name calling.
oh dear things must be bad for Remainers, we're back to swivel eyed
As opposed to Leavers turning on their own because things are not working out in the ways anticipated!!
so youre against debate ?
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I am merely observing that prominent Leavers are now beginning to attack prominent and long-standing Leave-supporting cabinet ministers. I have no problem at all with them doing it. But there must be a reason why.
of course it makes sense
Leave voters are no more a homogenous voting block than Remain voters are
if people who voted remain are having a debate of what they want what;s wrong with that ?
if only Remainers had the guts to do the same we might get a kind of national consensus rather than tedious scare mongering and name calling.
Yorkshire demands extreme vetting of southern immigrants.
Immigrants from the South are to undergo an ‘extreme vetting’ process to ensure they aren’t bringing softness into the county, Yorkshire has announced today.
Softness is a growing concern within the county, with reports indicating that children exposed to it are at risk of putting the heating on or wearing a vest.
Southerners are regarded by many as spreading softness, and voters are demanding government crackdown before the local culture is ‘swept away on a tide of Southern neshness’.
Migrants will be expected to pass a series of tests, including being able to convincingly say ‘lovely’ on Skegness beach in a force eight gale and sup eight pints of Tetley without spilling any.
“It’s a serious concern,” said Yorkshire spokesman Saz Williams.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
oh dear things must be bad for Remainers, we're back to swivel eyed
As opposed to Leavers turning on their own because things are not working out in the ways anticipated!!
so youre against debate ?
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I am merely observing that prominent Leavers are now beginning to attack prominent and long-standing Leave-supporting cabinet ministers. I have no problem at all with them doing it. But there must be a reason why.
of course it makes sense
Leave voters are no more a homogenous voting block than Remain voters are
if people who voted remain are having a debate of what they want what;s wrong with that ?
if only Remainers had the guts to do the same we might get a kind of national consensus rather than tedious scare mongering and name calling.
Got it. Nothing to see here. OK.
by all means point out the mole hills but dont tell me theyre called Ben Nevis
To argue the other side is to overturn the constitutional theory of centuries. Nonetheless, if a major part of the Leave campaign, whether the official one or not, was found to be in breach of funding laws (and to reiterate, this remains hypothetical), to such an extent that it might have affected the outcome, then there would be an arguable case that not only was the referendum result invalid but that the political actions that flowed from it were unconstitutional because they were predicated on a flawed process.
I am no constitutional lawyer, but I struggle with this conclusion I have to say. Parliament makes the decisions. If something comes from this and as a result they decide the referendum result was flawed, and thus there giving its result effect in error (or at least in need of another referendum to confirm it), then all well and good, but it doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with parliament's triggering of A50 not being in accordance with its constitutional requirements. Whether or not Brexit goes ahead with or without proof of funding shenanigans will be down to changes in political reality, not the law not having been followed.
A decision of a committee for instance is not typically deemed invalid if it later transpires than one of its members was invalid if other processes were correct. Given the referendum was not binding in any way shape or form and I cannot see how the Supreme Court would say otherwise, then how could it be said to be not in accordance with the constitution to follow it, based on the hard to quantify impact of Aaron Banks? Following the referendum, flawed or not, was not part of the constitutional process. The MPs could have ignored the referendum if they wanted, and some did. Would more have done so at the time if this story was known and proven? I'm very sure they would have, but the fact they were not bound to follow the referendum impact by anything other than their own political decision to do so, cuts off at the legs for me the argument that parliamentary vote was invalid.
So really I don't think this news need get into any constitutional wrangling at all. If it is proven the case, in concern with what might be the wrap up of very poor negotiations, then public and political opinion might well have shifted to being in favour of halting things, or even reversing them. There's no need to question the legitimacy of the previous decision, which was taken in good faith by parliament at the time.
This argument would seem, as it says, be an attempt to overturn centuries of constitutional theory, but that is not necessary to halt or overturn Brexit. The established view allows for a halt or overturn already (if we accept A50 as an international matter is revocable).
I’m sure the Nats won’t mention this at all! No Sireee!
Funnily enough, hitherto it seems to have been mainly a problem for the Proudscotbut Yoons of SLab.
'Does it matter that Richard Leonard is English? Does it matter that the bookies’ favourite for the Scottish Labour leadership speaks with a fine Yorkshire accent? This is the unasked question of Scottish politics at the moment. I say “unasked”. What I really mean is “unasked in public”. In private, among the Labour faithful, it is asked a lot.'
The idea that the Toru government would even consider abandoning a Brexit most of its members and voters are committed to bevause of an investigation into Leave.eu's funding, when it was not even the official Leave campaign, or alleged Russian involvement is preposterous.
Even if Brexit was abandoned Tory Leave voters would lend their votes to UKIP in droves at the next general election, probably joined by a fair few Labour Leave voters and UKIP could well end up holding the balance of power as a result.
I suppose it's always possible we could have a Corn Laws type of situation, in which some Tory Remain MP's back a minority Labour government which agreed to end Brexit.
That would not happen with Corbyn though who will not reverse Brexit as he wants to keep Labour Leavers on board and has always been a Eurosceptic
But Judge O'Neill doubled down on his comments in a subsequent Facebook post.
"Lighten up folks," he scolded his critics.
"This is how Democrats remain in the minority."
Must confess I'm not feeling the outrage on this one as strongly as other cases - it's hardly information I'd care to know, and he put it quite crudely, but that he is proud of his sexual record is neither here nor there. He has questioned the 'national feeding frenzy' into historic allegations, which might be problematic if he just dismisses everything because it happened a long time ago, but that doesn't seem to be the focus of criticism.
oh dear things must be bad for Remainers, we're back to swivel eyed
As opposed to Leavers turning on their own because things are not working out in the ways anticipated!!
so youre against debate ?
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I am merely observing that prominent Leavers are now beginning to attack prominent and long-standing Leave-supporting cabinet ministers. I have no problem at all with them doing it. But there must be a reason why.
of course it makes sense
Leave voters are no more a homogenous voting block than Remain voters are
if people who voted remain are having a debate of what they want what;s wrong with that ?
if only Remainers had the guts to do the same we might get a kind of national consensus rather than tedious scare mongering and name calling.
Got it. Nothing to see here. OK.
Not nothing, but not surprising or unique when people are not a homogeneous voting bloc.
if people who voted Leave are having a debate of what they want what;s wrong with that ?
if only Remainers had the guts to do the same we might get a kind of national consensus rather than tedious scare mongering and name calling.
When Remainers have the guts to say that they want to not Leave, you call them traitors and saboteurs.
I dont think Ive called anyone those names in the last year or so.
sore losers certainly, a bit thick of course
however the core facts are Remain is no more homogenous a block than Leave
on this board we have Euro enthusiasts such as Mr Glenn, Remainers who are pocket protectors such as yourself and others who use Remain as a way of disliking their political opponents such as young Meeks.
You have as many differences between you as the Leave camp does
so maybe you can tell me if we remain what direction you want the UK to take ?
Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.
And it will be seen as an excuse.
The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.
A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
You're conflating 2 separate things
We had a referendum. The decision was to Leave. To set that aside is to abbrogate democracy.
The precise mechanics - the extent to which the government takes into account the wishes of the 48% - are within the framework of democracy. The government would be perfectly within its rights - if unwise - to ignore them completely
But to ignore them entirely is exactly what the government has chosen to do. There could have been a Brexit middle ground around which most of us could have coalesced, but the May strategy has been to chase positive headlines in the Daily Mail instead. It has been a disastrous choice for the country.
My point was that is not antidemocratic although it may be poor political strategy
Indeed. I recall plenty of people arguing there was a better path right after the vote, given the narrow victory and the potentially large group content to accept the result as they had lost, who could potentially supported certain options.
But Judge O'Neill doubled down on his comments in a subsequent Facebook post.
"Lighten up folks," he scolded his critics.
"This is how Democrats remain in the minority."
Must confess I'm not feeling the outrage on this one as strongly as other cases - it's hardly information I'd care to know, and he put it quite crudely, but that he is proud of his sexual record is neither here nor there. He has questioned the 'national feeding frenzy' into historic allegations, which might be problematic if he just dismisses everything because it happened a long time ago, but that doesn't seem to be the focus of criticism.
So he's had consensual sex with 50 women in 50 years? Maybe that's cos he doesn't go round groping people?
But Judge O'Neill doubled down on his comments in a subsequent Facebook post.
"Lighten up folks," he scolded his critics.
"This is how Democrats remain in the minority."
Must confess I'm not feeling the outrage on this one as strongly as other cases - it's hardly information I'd care to know, and he put it quite crudely, but that he is proud of his sexual record is neither here nor there. He has questioned the 'national feeding frenzy' into historic allegations, which might be problematic if he just dismisses everything because it happened a long time ago, but that doesn't seem to be the focus of criticism.
So he's had consensual sex with 50 women in 50 years?
50 'very attractive' women - presumably the total number may be higher.
If David Herdson's right about this and he does tend to have a good nose for this type of story, then Ladbrokes/Corals odds of 7/2 against the UK still being a full member of the E.U. on 1 January 2020 looks like half decent value. I've had a nifty fifty on this being the case but, as ever, DYOR!
If David Herdson's right about this and he does tend to have a good nose for this type of story, then Ladbrokes/Corals odds of 7/2 against the UK still being a full member of the E.U. on 1 January 2020 looks like half decent value. I've had a nifty fifty on this being the case but, as ever, DYOR!
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.
"On Tuesday, [Senator] Corker will hold a committee hearing on nuclear authorization—the first on the topic since Gerald Ford was president—prompted by concerns he’s heard from members both on and off the committee over letting one person, and this person in particular, have the unfettered ability to launch a nuclear war."
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.
We have no reckoning to make. Our consciences are clear because you are just sore losers thrashing around for some excuse when the real reason you lost is that you are just a bunch of elitist tossers who think democracy should only be allowed when it produces the results you want. You love the EU precisely because it tempers democracy in a way that leaves power with the elites and so are heartbroken that at last someone has had the courage to challenge your undemocratic and autocratic edifice.
As I say most Leavers are very happy with the result and we certainly don't see any reason to apologise for having succeeded in our aims.
Write all the myths you want. It won't change history.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.
But then, don't complain that we aren't reaching out and trying to win you over.
Comments
37% would even be enough for UKIP to win most seats in the Commons if the Tories joined Labour and the LDs in backing soft Brexit or even changed course to reverse Brexit thus splitting the Remainer vote or soft Brexit vote 3 ways. The SNP of course still won most seats in June in Scotland on 37% even if the 3 Unionist parties won more MPs than in 2015.
It is possible of course to do a FTA and end free movement but not if we reverse course and stay in the single market.
This change in the courts sounds like a simplicity thing rather than anything dramatic
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/931834056089710592
There is no one who can "not permit" Brexit.
Fundamentally over the last 40 years UK politicians went beyond their mandate in suborning the country to the EU. They've been smacked and are squealing like a spoilt child
and they havent a clue what to do about it
Ford Southampton closed
Peugeot Ryton closed
LDV Birmingham closed
Vauxhall Luton stopped car production
Jaguar Coventry closed
AGCO Coventry closed
Rover Longbridge closed
And that deafening silence you can hear? That is Remainers taking responsibility for all that unwanted suborning. You'd think from them that Brexit was caused by those voting to Leave, rather than a reaction to what they have foisted upon us for forty years.
The architects of Brexit are those squealing loudest because their insidious campaign has come crashing down.
We owe them some money due. That's fair enough, but paying any figure they ask for is nonsensical.
But, I fear both Leave/Remain hardliners in the UK, and the intransigence of EU, means we're all boxing ourselves into a tungsten-tipped Brexit corner.
Even though I'd like full independence, and yesterday, I'm enough of a pragmatist to be flexible on the path we take, and the compromise on the ultimate destination.
Perhaps the RAF should do this over Brussels. Do you think it would help?
https://news.sky.com/story/washington-skies-see-penis-drawing-by-us-navy-jet-go-viral-11131042
Leavers wanted to use the existing franchise for GEs
Remainders wanted to change it to benefit themselves
https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/931837912865558528
It was a Marxist view bemoaning the fact that they wouldn't join together to overthrow capitalism. Some Remainers are the tuppence ha'penny who regard the Leavers as tuppence. Guaranteed to sow togetherness.
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
(Hope they don't get cold, the wind yesterday was biting).
Immigrants from the South are to undergo an ‘extreme vetting’ process to ensure they aren’t bringing softness into the county, Yorkshire has announced today.
Softness is a growing concern within the county, with reports indicating that children exposed to it are at risk of putting the heating on or wearing a vest.
Southerners are regarded by many as spreading softness, and voters are demanding government crackdown before the local culture is ‘swept away on a tide of Southern neshness’.
Migrants will be expected to pass a series of tests, including being able to convincingly say ‘lovely’ on Skegness beach in a force eight gale and sup eight pints of Tetley without spilling any.
“It’s a serious concern,” said Yorkshire spokesman Saz Williams.
http://newsthump.com/2017/11/09/yorkshire-demands-extreme-vetting-of-southern-immigrants/
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/05/inside-story-labour-leave-left-wing-eurosceptics-who-toppled-tory-prime-minister
Maybe not great news for the SNP.
I have a confession to make. In my teens I was so cold on Skegness beach I had to put a coat on. This was early August. I may have got away with it because it was deserted.
I’m sure the Nats won’t mention this at all! No Sireee!
has he heard of Angus Robertson ?
They get Look North and Calendar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-42030560
Never underestimate a Yorkshire accented former public schoolboy.
They are awesome and brilliant.
Leave voters are no more a homogenous voting block than Remain voters are
if people who voted Leave are having a debate of what they want what;s wrong with that ?
if only Remainers had the guts to do the same we might get a kind of national consensus rather than tedious scare mongering and name calling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42032731
I am no constitutional lawyer, but I struggle with this conclusion I have to say. Parliament makes the decisions. If something comes from this and as a result they decide the referendum result was flawed, and thus there giving its result effect in error (or at least in need of another referendum to confirm it), then all well and good, but it doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with parliament's triggering of A50 not being in accordance with its constitutional requirements. Whether or not Brexit goes ahead with or without proof of funding shenanigans will be down to changes in political reality, not the law not having been followed.
A decision of a committee for instance is not typically deemed invalid if it later transpires than one of its members was invalid if other processes were correct. Given the referendum was not binding in any way shape or form and I cannot see how the Supreme Court would say otherwise, then how could it be said to be not in accordance with the constitution to follow it, based on the hard to quantify impact of Aaron Banks? Following the referendum, flawed or not, was not part of the constitutional process. The MPs could have ignored the referendum if they wanted, and some did. Would more have done so at the time if this story was known and proven? I'm very sure they would have, but the fact they were not bound to follow the referendum impact by anything other than their own political decision to do so, cuts off at the legs for me the argument that parliamentary vote was invalid.
So really I don't think this news need get into any constitutional wrangling at all. If it is proven the case, in concern with what might be the wrap up of very poor negotiations, then public and political opinion might well have shifted to being in favour of halting things, or even reversing them. There's no need to question the legitimacy of the previous decision, which was taken in good faith by parliament at the time.
This argument would seem, as it says, be an attempt to overturn centuries of constitutional theory, but that is not necessary to halt or overturn Brexit. The established view allows for a halt or overturn already (if we accept A50 as an international matter is revocable).
'Does it matter that Richard Leonard is English? Does it matter that the bookies’ favourite for the Scottish Labour leadership speaks with a fine Yorkshire accent? This is the unasked question of Scottish politics at the moment.
I say “unasked”. What I really mean is “unasked in public”. In private, among the Labour faithful, it is asked a lot.'
https://tinyurl.com/y72renak
This is just the staunchly pro Boris Telegraph trying to ensure Davis is not a threat to their man succeeding May.
But Judge O'Neill doubled down on his comments in a subsequent Facebook post.
"Lighten up folks," he scolded his critics.
"This is how Democrats remain in the minority."
Must confess I'm not feeling the outrage on this one as strongly as other cases - it's hardly information I'd care to know, and he put it quite crudely, but that he is proud of his sexual record is neither here nor there. He has questioned the 'national feeding frenzy' into historic allegations, which might be problematic if he just dismisses everything because it happened a long time ago, but that doesn't seem to be the focus of criticism.
sore losers certainly, a bit thick of course
however the core facts are Remain is no more homogenous a block than Leave
on this board we have Euro enthusiasts such as Mr Glenn, Remainers who are pocket protectors such as yourself and others who use Remain as a way of disliking their political opponents such as young Meeks.
You have as many differences between you as the Leave camp does
so maybe you can tell me if we remain what direction you want the UK to take ?
Maybe that's cos he doesn't go round groping people?
If David Herdson's right about this and he does tend to have a good nose for this type of story, then Ladbrokes/Corals odds of 7/2 against the UK still being a full member of the E.U. on 1 January 2020 looks like half decent value.
I've had a nifty fifty on this being the case but, as ever, DYOR!
"On Tuesday, [Senator] Corker will hold a committee hearing on nuclear authorization—the first on the topic since Gerald Ford was president—prompted by concerns he’s heard from members both on and off the committee over letting one person, and this person in particular, have the unfettered ability to launch a nuclear war."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/14/jim-mattis-rex-tillerson-cabinet-stop-trump-nuclear-weapon-war-215824
As I say most Leavers are very happy with the result and we certainly don't see any reason to apologise for having succeeded in our aims.
Write all the myths you want. It won't change history.
Leonard's election is good news for the Tories and LDs but bad news for the SNP