Looking at the Graun, the headline is TMay reiterating her revised EU divorce bill offer. It mentions the EU's apparent EUR60bn but doesn't actually say how much our revised offer is.
€40bn plus taking on the pension liabilities of British EUcrats has been floated before. I think that works out to €13bn per year over three years after we officially leave and about €15bn in pension liabilities.
The fault lies with those happy to spread xenophobic lies. They will poison British politics for many years to come.
It is not a lie though, not officially. Until you accept that fact, a literal fact, that both the EU and our government were officially in favour of Turkey joining the EU, then a discussion with you on this subject is not worth having.
I'll ask you a simple yes or no question - was the official stance of the EU and our government in favour of Turkey joining the EU during the referendum campaign?
The EU, and indeed most of us non-foreigner-hating types, are in favour of Turkey joining the EU. I personally can't wait until they join. If you ask me, I would be happy for Saudi Arabia to join.
However...
Any country eligible to join will need to fulfil certain criteria which means that in Turkey's case it will be a completely different Turkey joining to the one that exists today. And we all hope that eventually it will get there.
Short of you having too much time on your hands pursuing this rather trivial point, I have no idea why you continue posting about it.
Too much time on my hands, I'm off sick!
Oh! Sorry to hear that - hope it's nothing too lingering.
I was once Best Man. I had quizzed the Groom on various anecdotes and old family stories to tell.
The best one, and my planned pièce de résistance, was long and fairly intricate, and involved a pair of underpants, the wife's grandmother, the wrong bedroom and the groom.
Minutes before I stood up, I learnt that the grandmother had died suddenly only a few days before and so I had to scribble out a whole chunk of the speech and then make some filler up as I stood up.
Probably a lucky escape - no-one ever thanks a Best Man for a long speech! Short is best for third place, given that the first two speakers frequently waffle on...
When it comes to public speaking, short is always best.
I had to stand up at my birthday lunch on Sunday and give a thank you speech. I clocked in at 52 seconds. No one has said to me since that they wanted me to carry on speaking for longer.
True. BMs' at weddings are nevertheless a particular risk. Either or both of the Parent of the Bride and the Groom can be almost guaranteed to talk for a reasonable amount of time. Often the food at the reception is already laid out and the guests are all sat looking at it during the speeches. It doesn't pay to take too long if going third...
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
I wasn’t in favour of the Balkan states joining. Or Hungary. Different cultural history. Poland, Czech Republic maybe.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
I wasn’t in favour of the Balkan states joining. Or Hungary. Different cultural history. Poland, Czech Republic maybe.
Fair enough. Just as well we're leaving then, isn't it.
Must be some beautiful sights to see. Such a shame it fell to the Turks.
Yeah we did, the minarets definitely made it look worse. All of the Islamic stuff inside also definitely didn't fit with the rest of the style. Though it was better than most other Islamic conquest, they did leave all of the original art rather than paint over it.
Must be some beautiful sights to see. Such a shame it fell to the Turks.
Yeah we did, the minarets definitely made it look worse. All of the Islamic stuff inside also definitely didn't fit with the rest of the style. Though it was better than most other Islamic conquest, they did leave all of the original art rather than paint over it.
Weren't we all praising the reformation earlier today on here? Plenty of not leaving original art then.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
I wasn’t in favour of the Balkan states joining. Or Hungary. Different cultural history. Poland, Czech Republic maybe.
I just went to Sofia (then the overnight train to Istanbul) and had a wonderful time there. The people were friendly and honest, the food was great and Bulgarian wine was a lot better than I expected.
Is Brexit red mist clouding the Remainiac Alastair Campbell’s judgement? Tony Blair’s aggressive former spin doctor went a bit Ukip at the Labour Leaver Gisela Stuart before the pair appeared on BBC One’s Sunday Politics. “When are you going to stop fucking up my country?” growled raging Ali. “It’s my country, too,” shot back the upset German-born Stuart, the Birmingham Edgbaston MP for two decades until quitting last June.
Campbell’s second verbal punch – “You’ve got another country to go to” – was so below the belt that, aimed by a Brextremist at a Stayer, might have had the snarling rottie denouncing xenophobia. Stuart has lived in Britain since 1974. Standing for Labour with the surname of her Bavarian parents, Gschaider, she was unsuccessful in the 1994 European elections. Three years later, under the Stuart name of her first husband, she won Edgbaston in Labour’s 1997 landslide. She never expected a loyalty test from a Labour Remainiac.
I think the issue is that we either accept the EU's statements at face value - "Turkey is a candidate to join the EU", the government's statement at face value "We will do everything in our power to help Turkey join the EU", or we make up our own minds based on what we think is within the realm of possibility.
I'm with you on this, I don't think Turkey was ever joining the EU, especially after Erdogan became a quasi-dictator. However, all of the official literature and official stances of the EU and our government made it clear that Turkey was a candidate for joining. A political campaign should base it's own views on the official stance of the government and EU, on that basis I don't see why Leave were wrong to campaign on that point. Both the government and EU could, and should, have seen it coming and suspended Turkey's candidature well in advance of the referendum, they did a few months later anyway so clearly it wasn't a huge issue.
The fault lies with the Remain side and the EU for not clarifying their position on Turkey well in advance of the referendum, especially since Turkish membership had already caused the Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
A bollocks analogy, because it is understood and intended that the failure rate for a job application is (number of candidates minus one)/(number of candidates) x 100 %.
This is bloody ridiculous. Merkel, Verhofstadt and Erdogan think Turkey was joining, and we are meant to believe a lot of idiot cunning nonsense on the interwebs about "that's what they *want* you to think? Really?
Must be some beautiful sights to see. Such a shame it fell to the Turks.
Yeah we did, the minarets definitely made it look worse. All of the Islamic stuff inside also definitely didn't fit with the rest of the style. Though it was better than most other Islamic conquest, they did leave all of the original art rather than paint over it.
Weren't we all praising the reformation earlier today on here? Plenty of not leaving original art then.
That iconoclasm. those burnings, disembowellings & beheadings, those decades long religious wars, completely different.
I see Liam Fox is making the case, once more, for his role to be eliminated and for the UK to remain inside the Customs Union.
What's not to like about increasing the collective IQ of the cabinet, solving the Irish border question and getting us to trade talks with the EU27 all in one go?
I think the issue is that we either accept the EU's statements at face value - "Turkey is a candidate to join the EU", the government's statement at face value "We will do everything in our power to help Turkey join the EU", or we make up our own minds based on what we think is within the realm of possibility.
I'm with you on this, I don't think Turkey was ever joining the EU, especially after Erdogan became a quasi-dictator. However, all of the official literature and official stances of the EU and our government made it clear that Turkey was a candidate for joining. A political campaign should base it's own views on the official stance of the government and EU, on that basis I don't see why Leave were wrong to campaign on that point. Both the government and EU could, and should, have seen it coming and suspended Turkey's candidature well in advance of the referendum, they did a few months later anyway so clearly it wasn't a huge issue.
The fault lies with the Remain side and the EU for not clarifying their position on Turkey well in advance of the referendum, especially since Turkish membership had already caused the Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
A bollocks analogy, because it is understood and intended that the failure rate for a job application is (number of candidates minus one)/(number of candidates) x 100 %.
This is bloody ridiculous. Merkel, Verhofstadt and Erdogan think Turkey was joining, and we are meant to believe a lot of idiot cunning nonsense on the interwebs about "that's what they *want* you to think? Really?
So you are saying that it was *certain* that Turkey would join?
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
I wasn’t in favour of the Balkan states joining. Or Hungary. Different cultural history. Poland, Czech Republic maybe.
I just went to Sofia (then the overnight train to Istanbul) and had a wonderful time there. The people were friendly and honest, the food was great and Bulgarian wine was a lot better than I expected.
Went there many, many years ago, before the Wall came down. Cultural/professional visit. Among the best wine I’ve ever had, and some of the oddest food. Chicken soup with feathers in it!
Must be some beautiful sights to see. Such a shame it fell to the Turks.
Yeah we did, the minarets definitely made it look worse. All of the Islamic stuff inside also definitely didn't fit with the rest of the style. Though it was better than most other Islamic conquest, they did leave all of the original art rather than paint over it.
Yes, the Byzantine mosaics were mostly painted and plastered over, so are visible in parts.
The Muslim tradition is in line with Jewish and Protestant interpretation of figurative art not being appropriate in a house of worship, and of course the Byzantines had their own iconoclastic controversy.
The Catholic and Orthodox tradition of statuary is really a throwback to Greco-Roman paganism.
Hagia Sofia is well worth a visit, but Ravenna is better still for mosaics.
Constantinople had very much declined as a city before it fell to the Ottamans.
I think the issue is that we either accept the EU's statements at face value - "Turkey is a candidate to join the EU", the government's statement at face value "We will do everything in our power to help Turkey join the EU", or we make up our own minds based on what we think is within the realm of possibility.
I'm with you on this, I don't think Turkey was ever joining the EU, especially after Erdogan became a quasi-dictator. However, all of the official literature and official stances of the EU and our government made it clear that Turkey was a candidate for joining. A political campaign should base it's own views on the official stance of the government and EU, on that basis I don't see why Leave were wrong to campaign on that point. Both the government and EU could, and should, have seen it coming and suspended Turkey's candidature well in advance of the referendum, they did a few months later anyway so clearly it wasn't a huge issue.
The fault lies with the Remain side and the EU for not clarifying their position on Turkey well in advance of the referendum, especially since Turkish membership had already caused the Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
A bollocks analogy, because it is understood and intended that the failure rate for a job application is (number of candidates minus one)/(number of candidates) x 100 %.
This is bloody ridiculous. Merkel, Verhofstadt and Erdogan think Turkey was joining, and we are meant to believe a lot of idiot cunning nonsense on the interwebs about "that's what they *want* you to think? Really?
So you are saying that it was *certain* that Turkey would join?
Read my previous posts wrt your last paragraph.
"I'm with you on this, I don't think Turkey was ever joining the EU, especially after Erdogan became a quasi-dictator." That sums it up - Leave's project fear, coupled with project Big Lie (£350/million/week) won it for them.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
The difference is that the EU and our government etc get to determine who joins the EU and they were all saying Turkey should join. We are entitled to take them at their word.
If UEFA got to decide who won the Champions League without any football being played and the UEFA chiefs were all saying Hamilton Academicals should win then that would be equivalent.
Mr Meeks and others are asking us to accept that knowing deceit is a perfectly acceptable part of public discourse. It's a good example of how the EU has corrupted politics in its various member states, although less blatant than the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty over the heads of France and the Netherlands after they rejected the constitution.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
I wasn’t in favour of the Balkan states joining. Or Hungary. Different cultural history. Poland, Czech Republic maybe.
I just went to Sofia (then the overnight train to Istanbul) and had a wonderful time there. The people were friendly and honest, the food was great and Bulgarian wine was a lot better than I expected.
Went there many, many years ago, before the Wall came down. Cultural/professional visit. Among the best wine I’ve ever had, and some of the oddest food. Chicken soup with feathers in it!
It's a lot more sophisticated than that today. Well worth a weekend visit. I was genuinely surprised as to how advanced their food culture was, the other eastern nations get nowhere near what's on offer in Sofia.
Mr Meeks and others are asking us to accept that knowing deceit is a perfectly acceptable part of public discourse. It's a good example of how the EU has corrupted politics in its various member states, although less blatant than the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty over the heads of France and the Netherlands after they rejected the constitution.
Not only are we to understand that their deceit was a deceit, but to take what they were claiming at face value is a xenophobic lie ... *rolleyes*
Mr Meeks and others are asking us to accept that knowing deceit is a perfectly acceptable part of public discourse. It's a good example of how the EU has corrupted politics in its various member states, although less blatant than the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty over the heads of France and the Netherlands after they rejected the constitution.
Do you think the EU should dictate to sovereign states how they should ratify treaties? Or are you using 'the EU' in an abstract way and are arguing against formal cooperation between states in principle?
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
I wasn’t in favour of the Balkan states joining. Or Hungary. Different cultural history. Poland, Czech Republic maybe.
I just went to Sofia (then the overnight train to Istanbul) and had a wonderful time there. The people were friendly and honest, the food was great and Bulgarian wine was a lot better than I expected.
Went there many, many years ago, before the Wall came down. Cultural/professional visit. Among the best wine I’ve ever had, and some of the oddest food. Chicken soup with feathers in it!
It's a lot more sophisticated than that today. Well worth a weekend visit. I was genuinely surprised as to how advanced their food culture was, the other eastern nations get nowhere near what's on offer in Sofia.
Glad to hear it. I really don’tb recall from that time as being anything special, apaert from as stated, but it was an experience. Might give it another go.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
The difference is that the EU and our government etc get to determine who joins the EU and they were all saying Turkey should join. We are entitled to take them at their word.
If UEFA got to decide who won the Champions League without any football being played and the UEFA chiefs were all saying Hamilton Academicals should win then that would be equivalent.
Nope. There are strict entrance criteria for joining the EU. As it stands, Turkey does not meet those criteria. Hence they are not able to join, while still being in the process of joining. No one is talking about giving Turkey a free pass to the final. They must first get to head the Scottish Premiership, and then play and win all the qualifying rounds and then win in the final.
Mr. Blue, the fall of Byzantium meant the fall of the Roman Empire and the end of a civilisation. Imagine if Rome fell to a caliphate, or Mecca was conquered by crusaders. Not my period really but I believe there's a fantastic mosque in... Cordoba, perhaps, where, after the Moors were expelled, it was ruined by having a corner cut away and a church built there.
It's possible we'd still have a Roman Empire, if it weren't for the Fourth Crusade in the 13th century and the failure of the West to come to Constantinople's aid in the 15th.
People don't realise that part of the Renaissance was fleeing Byzantine scholars, who brought art and books with them revitalising Western interest in the classical world.
Anyway, the past is long since gone. I'm not arguing Istanbul shouldn't be Turkish or anything like that. I just like the idea of a civilisation twenty-two centuries old surviving a bit longer rather than being wiped out.
In happier news, my boots arrived and they feel, initially, rather more comfortable.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
The difference is that the EU and our government etc get to determine who joins the EU and they were all saying Turkey should join. We are entitled to take them at their word.
If UEFA got to decide who won the Champions League without any football being played and the UEFA chiefs were all saying Hamilton Academicals should win then that would be equivalent.
Nope. There are strict entrance criteria for joining the EU. As it stands, Turkey does not meet those criteria. Hence they are not able to join, while still being in the process of joining. No one is talking about giving Turkey a free pass to the final. They must first get to head the Scottish Premiership, and then play and win all the qualifying rounds and then win in the final.
Are you aware that at the time of the referendum we were paying billions to Turkey to smooth the transition so that they could join?
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
The difference is that the EU and our government etc get to determine who joins the EU and they were all saying Turkey should join. We are entitled to take them at their word.
If UEFA got to decide who won the Champions League without any football being played and the UEFA chiefs were all saying Hamilton Academicals should win then that would be equivalent.
Nope. There are strict entrance criteria for joining the EU. As it stands, Turkey does not meet those criteria. Hence they are not able to join, while still being in the process of joining. No one is talking about giving Turkey a free pass to the final. They must first get to head the Scottish Premiership, and then play and win all the qualifying rounds and then win in the final.
Are you aware that at the time of the referendum we were paying billions to Turkey to smooth the transition so that they could join?
What a good idea. Who wouldn't want a Turkey moving towards embracing modern, democratic, egalitarian norms, governed by the rule of law?
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
The difference is that the EU and our government etc get to determine who joins the EU and they were all saying Turkey should join. We are entitled to take them at their word.
If UEFA got to decide who won the Champions League without any football being played and the UEFA chiefs were all saying Hamilton Academicals should win then that would be equivalent.
To continue the analogy, Hamilton Academicals can win the Champions League as long as they pass all of the hurdles along the way. Turkey needs to do the same to join the EU.
Essentially it needs to meet all the human rights and economic conditions, and convince the EU27 that it has done so, and in good faith.
We should encourage and support them to do so, but obviously there is a long way to go and that Turkey would be a very different country to the current one, just as a CL winning Academicals team might need a few new signings.
No deceit involved, the steps are all there to be seen.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
The difference is that the EU and our government etc get to determine who joins the EU and they were all saying Turkey should join. We are entitled to take them at their word.
If UEFA got to decide who won the Champions League without any football being played and the UEFA chiefs were all saying Hamilton Academicals should win then that would be equivalent.
Nope. There are strict entrance criteria for joining the EU. As it stands, Turkey does not meet those criteria. Hence they are not able to join, while still being in the process of joining. No one is talking about giving Turkey a free pass to the final. They must first get to head the Scottish Premiership, and then play and win all the qualifying rounds and then win in the final.
Are you aware that at the time of the referendum we were paying billions to Turkey to smooth the transition so that they could join?
These are the EU accession chapters. Which of these do you think are on Erdogan's agenda? Turkey would need to meet all of them before 'transition' was on the agenda.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
The difference is that the EU and our government etc get to determine who joins the EU and they were all saying Turkey should join. We are entitled to take them at their word.
If UEFA got to decide who won the Champions League without any football being played and the UEFA chiefs were all saying Hamilton Academicals should win then that would be equivalent.
To continue the analogy, Hamilton Academicals can win the Champions League as long as they pass all of the hurdles along the way. Turkey needs to do the same to join the EU.
Essentially it needs to meet all the human rights and economic conditions, and convince the EU27 that it has done so, and in good faith.
We should encourage and support them to do so, but obviously there is a long way to go and that Turkey would be a very different country to the current one, just as a CL winning Academicals team might need a few new signings.
No deceit involved, the steps are all there to be seen.
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING ABOUT THE CURRENT HAMILTON ACADEMICALS TEAM!???
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
The difference is that the EU and our government etc get to determine who joins the EU and they were all saying Turkey should join. We are entitled to take them at their word.
If UEFA got to decide who won the Champions League without any football being played and the UEFA chiefs were all saying Hamilton Academicals should win then that would be equivalent.
Nope. There are strict entrance criteria for joining the EU. As it stands, Turkey does not meet those criteria. Hence they are not able to join, while still being in the process of joining. No one is talking about giving Turkey a free pass to the final. They must first get to head the Scottish Premiership, and then play and win all the qualifying rounds and then win in the final.
Are you aware that at the time of the referendum we were paying billions to Turkey to smooth the transition so that they could join?
These are the EU accession chapters. Which of these do you think are on Erdogan's agenda? Turkey would need to meet all of them before 'transition' was on the agenda.
If you are 5 miles into a marathon and look unlikely to make it the 26 miles, you are still running a marathon. By the same standard Turkey are in the process of joining the EU.
If you are 5 miles into a marathon and look unlikely to make it the 26 miles, you are still running a marathon. By the same standard Turkey are in the process of joining the EU.
If you get 5 miles into a marathon and walk off the course, you are no longer running a marathon.
Mr. Blue, the fall of Byzantium meant the fall of the Roman Empire and the end of a civilisation. Imagine if Rome fell to a caliphate, or Mecca was conquered by crusaders. Not my period really but I believe there's a fantastic mosque in... Cordoba, perhaps, where, after the Moors were expelled, it was ruined by having a corner cut away and a church built there.
It's possible we'd still have a Roman Empire, if it weren't for the Fourth Crusade in the 13th century and the failure of the West to come to Constantinople's aid in the 15th.
People don't realise that part of the Renaissance was fleeing Byzantine scholars, who brought art and books with them revitalising Western interest in the classical world.
Anyway, the past is long since gone. I'm not arguing Istanbul shouldn't be Turkish or anything like that. I just like the idea of a civilisation twenty-two centuries old surviving a bit longer rather than being wiped out.
In happier news, my boots arrived and they feel, initially, rather more comfortable.
The city may have fallen in 1453, but Manzikert and the Fourth Crusade made collapse inevitable. When it fell it was a shadow of its former self.
I think it's a fantastic place to visit, but living there is probably quite unpleasant due to the almost total lack of green space.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : C and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
The difference is that the EU and our government etc get to determine who joins the EU and they were all saying Turkey should join. We are entitled to take them at their word.
If UEFA got to decide who won the Champions League without any football being played and the UEFA chiefs were all saying Hamilton Academicals should win then that would be equivalent.
Nope. There are strict entrance criteria for joining the EU. As it stands, Turkey does not meet those criteria. Hence they are not able to join, while still being in the process of joining. No one is talking about giving Turkey a free pass to the final. They must first get to head the Scottish Premiership, and then play and win all the qualifying rounds and then win in the final.
Are you aware that at the time of the referendum we were paying billions to Turkey to smooth the transition so that they could join?
These are the EU accession chapters. Which of these do you think are on Erdogan's agenda? Turkey would need to meet all of them before 'transition' was on the agenda.
If you are 5 miles into a marathon and look unlikely to make it the 26 miles, you are still running a marathon. By the same standard Turkey are in the process of joining the EU.
I think we can agree that they are in the process of joining. But they are a long way (21 miles) from joining. Because they cannot finish the marathon by simply keeping going. They must along the way change shoes, t-shirt, and socks. And until they have done that, they can't finish.
Mr. Blue, the fall of Byzantium meant the fall of the Roman Empire and the end of a civilisation. Imagine if Rome fell to a caliphate, or Mecca was conquered by crusaders. Not my period really but I believe there's a fantastic mosque in... Cordoba, perhaps, where, after the Moors were expelled, it was ruined by having a corner cut away and a church built there.
It's possible we'd still have a Roman Empire, if it weren't for the Fourth Crusade in the 13th century and the failure of the West to come to Constantinople's aid in the 15th.
People don't realise that part of the Renaissance was fleeing Byzantine scholars, who brought art and books with them revitalising Western interest in the classical world.
Anyway, the past is long since gone. I'm not arguing Istanbul shouldn't be Turkish or anything like that. I just like the idea of a civilisation twenty-two centuries old surviving a bit longer rather than being wiped out.
In happier news, my boots arrived and they feel, initially, rather more comfortable.
The city may have fallen in 1453, but Manzikert and the Fourth Crusade made collapse inevitable. When it fell it was a shadow of its former self.
I think it's a fantastic place to visit, but living there is probably quite unpleasant due to the almost total lack of green space.
Don't tell @rcs1000 that the 15 million residents of Istanbul will all make their way to Hampstead Heath as soon as Turkey are IN.
Mr. Blue, I know Manzikert was significant but I think people overplay it compared to the problems the Angeli misrule caused (which led to the Fourth Crusade).
Defeat was not necessarily inevitable. The Knights of St John, fighting on Rhodes, proved that. The Latins preferred a Turkish triumph to a Byzantine one.
You're right that the strategic picture was bleak, though.
Also, a lot of artwork, artefacts and literature were destroyed when the city fell. If nothing else, that caused a permanent cultural loss.
I wonder if any other head of state has had a death as poignantly tragic as Constantine Dragases?
If you are 5 miles into a marathon and look unlikely to make it the 26 miles, you are still running a marathon. By the same standard Turkey are in the process of joining the EU.
If you get 5 miles into a marathon and walk off the course, you are no longer running a marathon.
At the time of the EU ref they were still slowly walking.
Mr. Blue, I know Manzikert was significant but I think people overplay it compared to the problems the Angeli misrule caused (which led to the Fourth Crusade).
Defeat was not necessarily inevitable. The Knights of St John, fighting on Rhodes, proved that. The Latins preferred a Turkish triumph to a Byzantine one.
You're right that the strategic picture was bleak, though.
Also, a lot of artwork, artefacts and literature were destroyed when the city fell. If nothing else, that caused a permanent cultural loss.
I wonder if any other head of state has had a death as poignantly tragic as Constantine Dragases?
Somebody really should make a 1960s Anthony and Cleopatra style film about the fall of Constantinople.
As an aside, one thing I may blog on soon (perhaps next week) is historical divisions akin to the one we're seeing now. Iconoclasts and iconodules in Byzantium might well be part of that.
Sometimes, people would have an icon of a saint or Mary as a godparent. On the other sight, iconoclasts smashed countless works of art. Eventually it calmed down, and neither lunatic fringe won (a sort of soft iconodule was the result).
Edited extra bit: Mr. Blue, aye, but the Eastern Empire is little known of by the general public. It's a real shame.
Mr. Blue, the fall of Byzantium meant the fall of the Roman Empire and the end of a civilisation. Imagine if Rome fell to a caliphate, or Mecca was conquered by crusaders. Not my period really but I believe there's a fantastic mosque in... Cordoba, perhaps, where, after the Moors were expelled, it was ruined by having a corner cut away and a church built there.
Cordoba it was, Mr Dancer, but the Christian church was built right in the middle, not in a corner. The place is so enormous, that I don`t think it lessens the general impact.
Is Brexit red mist clouding the Remainiac Alastair Campbell’s judgement? Tony Blair’s aggressive former spin doctor went a bit Ukip at the Labour Leaver Gisela Stuart before the pair appeared on BBC One’s Sunday Politics. “When are you going to stop fucking up my country?” growled raging Ali. “It’s my country, too,” shot back the upset German-born Stuart, the Birmingham Edgbaston MP for two decades until quitting last June.
Campbell’s second verbal punch – “You’ve got another country to go to” – was so below the belt that, aimed by a Brextremist at a Stayer, might have had the snarling rottie denouncing xenophobia. Stuart has lived in Britain since 1974. Standing for Labour with the surname of her Bavarian parents, Gschaider, she was unsuccessful in the 1994 European elections. Three years later, under the Stuart name of her first husband, she won Edgbaston in Labour’s 1997 landslide. She never expected a loyalty test from a Labour Remainiac.
Is Brexit red mist clouding the Remainiac Alastair Campbell’s judgement? Tony Blair’s aggressive former spin doctor went a bit Ukip at the Labour Leaver Gisela Stuart before the pair appeared on BBC One’s Sunday Politics. “When are you going to stop fucking up my country?” growled raging Ali. “It’s my country, too,” shot back the upset German-born Stuart, the Birmingham Edgbaston MP for two decades until quitting last June.
Campbell’s second verbal punch – “You’ve got another country to go to” – was so below the belt that, aimed by a Brextremist at a Stayer, might have had the snarling rottie denouncing xenophobia. Stuart has lived in Britain since 1974. Standing for Labour with the surname of her Bavarian parents, Gschaider, she was unsuccessful in the 1994 European elections. Three years later, under the Stuart name of her first husband, she won Edgbaston in Labour’s 1997 landslide. She never expected a loyalty test from a Labour Remainiac.
Some journos now predicting Ireland is the rock upon which Brexit will founder
To mix metaphors, Ireland seems to be the crocodile nearest the boat at the moment. But there are many other crocs out there and any of them might deliver the coup de grace which will put Brexit out of its misery.
Some journos now predicting Ireland is the rock upon which Brexit will founder
To mix metaphors, Ireland seems to be the crocodile nearest the boat at the moment. But there are many other crocs out there and any of them might deliver the coup de grace which will put Brexit out of its misery.
Just because the boat sinks, doesn't mean you won't still be on it when it does.
Ain't gonna happen because the EU27 have a united position behind Ireland.
The anger stage will pass, Richard.
Their unified position is identical to the UK one, but bizarrely manifests itself as an apparent willingness to veto their own objective. It's the weirdest position I've ever seen, but, even if they persist with the lunacy, it would derail a Brexit deal, not Brexit, as David H has already pointed out.
Some journos now predicting Ireland is the rock upon which Brexit will founder
Were they the same journos predicting May would be out within weeks?
In normal circumstances Theresa would have resigned within hours. What saved her is that none of her possible successors fancied being PM while Brexit was ongoing, so they kept Theresa in place to absorb the contamination.
In normal circumstances Theresa would have resigned within hours. What saved her is that none of her possible successors fancied being PM while Brexit was ongoing, so they kept Theresa in place to absorb the contamination.
Is anyone on here laying bets on how long she would survive a no deal Brexit (despite being her preferred choice) ?
https://twitter.com/jamescleverly/status/932896524618620928 Anyone who thinks James Cleverly should be the next leader of the Conservative party should think again. He’s deluding himself if he believes that all of Corbyn’s young voters thought Corbyn would ‘stop Brexit’. As Stephen Bush notes: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/932920931672043520 Patronising voters won’t win them over. If this the Tories idea of pointing out Corbyn’s drawbacks then they have some issues.
In normal circumstances Theresa would have resigned within hours. What saved her is that none of her possible successors fancied being PM while Brexit was ongoing, so they kept Theresa in place to absorb the contamination.
Is anyone on here laying bets on how long she would survive a no deal Brexit (despite being her preferred choice) ?
In May's first newspaper interview after she became PM she did the following:
- Ruled out an early election - Ruled out invoking Article 50 before having a strategy - Ruled out a second referendum
Her plan has been hidden in plain sight all along.
https://twitter.com/jamescleverly/status/932896524618620928 Anyone who thinks James Cleverly should be the next leader of the Conservative party should think again. He’s deluding himself if he believes that all of Corbyn’s young voters thought Corbyn would ‘stop Brexit’. As Stephen Bush notes: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/932920931672043520 Patronising voters won’t win them over. If this the Tories idea of pointing out Corbyn’s drawbacks then they have some issues.
I'm sure the British public would be delighted at the prospect of the Irish Republic vetoing a British referendum result.
Another one to file under 'Ain't gonna happen'.
Big folder that one. Includes Brexit, President Trump, 2015 majority, 2017 losing majority and so on.
It is indeed a very big folder.
Mind you, I'm all in favour of wishful thinking in politics, it makes political betting so profitable.
Political parties are, almost by definition, bubbles of opinion and wishful thinking. One of the useful and interesting things about PB is that it cuts across the tribes.
In that spirit, Conservatives are not handling Corbyn at all well. Current attitudes remind me of certain Labour attitudes towards Cameron in the late 00s. Remember that Gene Hunt poster.
https://twitter.com/jamescleverly/status/932896524618620928 Anyone who thinks James Cleverly should be the next leader of the Conservative party should think again. He’s deluding himself if he believes that all of Corbyn’s young voters thought Corbyn would ‘stop Brexit’. As Stephen Bush notes: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/932920931672043520 Patronising voters won’t win them over. If this the Tories idea of pointing out Corbyn’s drawbacks then they have some issues.
Suggesting that Labour voters voted Labour as the party of remain is not suggesting they are idiots. Far from it. Corbyn did nothing to disavow them of that viewpoint, even though it is pretty far from the truth. In purely political terms, it was his greatest success and denied May her majority.
If anyone has any doubt about TM determination catch up on her frosty glare at Tusk when he grabs her hand. If looks could kill as the expression goes.
I think the remainers are about to collide with democracy as TM delivers her offer enveloppe in good will but is quite prepared to end talks if the EU reject it and i might add, would receive big backing in the Country .
The greatest shame is that David Cameron didn't do it earlier
The vote to endorse the Good Friday Agreement and the changes to the Irish constitution that entailed. The GFA assumed ongoing UK membership of the European Union.
It also assumes ongoing UK adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Tories are also keen for us to pull out of, I believe.
In normal circumstances Theresa would have resigned within hours. What saved her is that none of her possible successors fancied being PM while Brexit was ongoing, so they kept Theresa in place to absorb the contamination.
Is anyone on here laying bets on how long she would survive a no deal Brexit (despite being her preferred choice) ?
The euro-sceptic Right would persuade themselves that a no-deal crash-out WTO disaster was, in fact, really rather wonderful. To them Brexit is Heaven, and you can't find fault with Heaven. So Theresa might be able to limp on.
Daffarn and O'Connor shared a theory that Kensington and Chelsea - a London borough more widely known for its museums, designer shops and flower shows - actually wanted its council estates to go into decline, so that the residents would leave and expensive flats could be built in this sought-after location.
We know that the council spent some crazy amount per flat renovating them. This kind of reporting of fake news is how we got all those claims of 100s dead and the authorities hiding the true number.
In that spirit, Conservatives are not handling Corbyn at all well. Current attitudes remind me of certain Labour attitudes towards Cameron in the late 00s. Remember that Gene Hunt poster.
Yes, I think they haven't yet got the right angle. Broadly they should be focusing more on the unworkabilty of his positions rather than the IRA/Hamas/Stalin/Marxist attacks (justified though the latter undoubtedly are).
More specifically they should be targeting different messages at different segments. They can run the IRA/Hamas/Stalin/Marxist stuff at older voters, most of whom will be extremely receptive to it. They should keep well away from that angle on any media aimed at younger voters, for whom 'Well-meaning guy, but hopeless in practice' should be the message, backed up by concrete examples of how they would be impacted by Corbynomics.
Of course, to get this right requires someone with a really good political sense for what works. That's a bit of a problem at the moment..
In normal circumstances Theresa would have resigned within hours. What saved her is that none of her possible successors fancied being PM while Brexit was ongoing, so they kept Theresa in place to absorb the contamination.
Is anyone on here laying bets on how long she would survive a no deal Brexit (despite being her preferred choice) ?
The euro-sceptic Right would persuade themselves that a no-deal crash-out WTO disaster was, in fact, really rather wonderful. To them Brexit is Heaven, and you can't find fault with Heaven. So Theresa might be able to limp on.
A no deal crash out would not be wonderful, indeed not desirable at all, but neither is lying prostrate at the feet of the EU bending to all their demands
Mr. Observer, how else could a referendum have been run? With an Irish Republic veto?
Of course not. I am merely pointing out that just as the British may not be happy for the Irish to seek to overturn a British referendum result, the Irish have every reason to be pissed off that the British have effectively overridden an Irish referendum result.
https://twitter.com/jamescleverly/status/932896524618620928 Anyone who thinks James Cleverly should be the next leader of the Conservative party should think again. He’s deluding himself if he believes that all of Corbyn’s young voters thought Corbyn would ‘stop Brexit’. As Stephen Bush notes: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/932920931672043520 Patronising voters won’t win them over. If this the Tories idea of pointing out Corbyn’s drawbacks then they have some issues.
Suggesting that Labour voters voted Labour as the party of remain is not suggesting they are idiots. Far from it. Corbyn did nothing to disavow them of that viewpoint, even though it is pretty far from the truth. In purely political terms, it was his greatest success and denied May her majority.
His saracastic, mocking, patronising tone does indeed imply that young people are ‘idiots’, as well as his assertion young voters believed Corbyn would stop Brexit. You do not patronise those who you believe to have a modicum of intelligence. Corbyn’s voters did not vote for him believing that he’d stop Brexit, and to imply they did, is to imply that his voters didn’t listen to anything he said. I’ve long been a critic of Labour’s Brexit policy, I likened it to the Schodinger’s Cat theory earlier on this week, but Cleverly’s implication that young voters expected Corbyn to stop Brexit is deeply disingenuous. It’s similar to the implication that Corbyn’s voters thought he would write off student debt, when the polling found only 17% of people actually believed this.
In normal circumstances Theresa would have resigned within hours. What saved her is that none of her possible successors fancied being PM while Brexit was ongoing, so they kept Theresa in place to absorb the contamination.
Is anyone on here laying bets on how long she would survive a no deal Brexit (despite being her preferred choice) ?
The euro-sceptic Right would persuade themselves that a no-deal crash-out WTO disaster was, in fact, really rather wonderful. To them Brexit is Heaven, and you can't find fault with Heaven. So Theresa might be able to limp on.
A no deal crash out would not be wonderful, indeed not desirable at all, but neither is lying prostrate at the feet of the EU bending to all their demands
We are leaving come what may
You can't avoid humiliation simply because it would be humiliating not to.
Mr. Observer, it's hard to see how else it could have happened, though.
Mr. Urquhart, the Independent has been guilty of recent fake news, with the false story about MPs (evil Tories, of course) voting that animals aren't sentient. They've since retracted.
If anyone has any doubt about TM determination catch up on her frosty glare at Tusk when he grabs her hand. If looks could kill as the expression goes.
I think the remainers are about to collide with democracy as TM delivers her offer enveloppe in good will but is quite prepared to end talks if the EU reject it and i might add, would receive big backing in the Country .
The greatest shame is that David Cameron didn't do it earlier
The country is split. A UK walkout of the Brexit talks may see the Tories win a small overall majority on the back of a Red, White and Blue election. Then the Tories would have to deal with the consequences of a walkout. That may not go so well for them.
If I am a candidate for a job, it does not mean I am joining the company. It means that I may join in the future, subject to interviews, agreed terms etc.
'Turkey is joining' gives the impression that everything was agreed and it was happening. It was not. I'd have no problem with : "Turkey may join in the future" or "Turkey is negotiating to join."
The EU's position on Turkey at the time was well known and understood: they could join in the future if they met all the AC and survived a vote of other EU members. People lie and/or deliberately misunderstand it for their own ends.
You can dance around on the head of a pin as much as you like, but the fact remains that during the campaign both our government and the EU were in favour of Turkey joining the EU.
SO WHAT? They are in favour of Turkey joining. Why shouldn't they be? I am in favour of Turkey joining. I am also in favour of Hamilton Academicals winning the Champions League.
Being in favour of something doesn't mean it is going to happen. How many people have to tell you this before it sinks in?
The difference is that the EU and our government etc get to determine who joins the EU and they were all saying Turkey should join. We are entitled to take them at their word.
If UEFA got to decide who won the Champions League without any football being played and the UEFA chiefs were all saying Hamilton Academicals should win then that would be equivalent.
Nope. There are strict entrance criteria for joining the EU. As it stands, Turkey does not meet those criteria. Hence they are not able to join, while still being in the process of joining. No one is talking about giving Turkey a free pass to the final. They must first get to head the Scottish Premiership, and then play and win all the qualifying rounds and then win in the final.
On the other hand - if Turkey had tidied up its act a bit and then joined the EU, who was offering the British people a vote on the prospect of their citizens being able to migrate to the Uk ?
In normal circumstances Theresa would have resigned within hours. What saved her is that none of her possible successors fancied being PM while Brexit was ongoing, so they kept Theresa in place to absorb the contamination.
Is anyone on here laying bets on how long she would survive a no deal Brexit (despite being her preferred choice) ?
The euro-sceptic Right would persuade themselves that a no-deal crash-out WTO disaster was, in fact, really rather wonderful. To them Brexit is Heaven, and you can't find fault with Heaven. So Theresa might be able to limp on.
A no deal crash out would not be wonderful, indeed not desirable at all, but neither is lying prostrate at the feet of the EU bending to all their demands
We are leaving come what may
You can't avoid humiliation simply because it would be humiliating not to.
With the greatest respect you are a fanatic remainer who must be in permanent turmoil over Brexit and sadly you are going to end up in a very unhappy place as we are going to leave the EU
His saracastic, mocking tone does indeed imply that young people are ‘idiots’, as well as his assertion young voters believed Corbyn would stop Brexit. Corbyn’s voters did not vote for him believing that he’d stop Brexit, and to imply they did, is to imply that his voters didn’t listen to anything he said. I’ve long been a critic of Labour’s Brexit policy, I likened it to the Schodinger’s Cat theory earlier on this week, but Cleverly’s implication that young voters expected Corbyn to stop Brexit is deeply disingenuous. It’s similar to the implication that Corbyn’s voters thought he would write off student debt, when the polling found only 17% of people actually believed this.
There are multiple factors, even within single individuals. So it's not at all unreasonable to make the point that some of the Labour vote was attracted by the belief or hope that Labour would stop or at least soften Brexit, and that some of it was attracted by a view that Corbyn would write off student debt. The Conservatives should have been much more on the ball in unpicking each of the contradictions in Labour's messaging and policies.
A percent here, a percent there, makes the difference between winning or not winning a majority.
Comments
Must be some beautiful sights to see. Such a shame it fell to the Turks.
This is bloody ridiculous. Merkel, Verhofstadt and Erdogan think Turkey was joining, and we are meant to believe a lot of idiot cunning nonsense on the interwebs about "that's what they *want* you to think? Really?
What's not to like about increasing the collective IQ of the cabinet, solving the Irish border question and getting us to trade talks with the EU27 all in one go?
Read my previous posts wrt your last paragraph.
The Muslim tradition is in line with Jewish and Protestant interpretation of figurative art not being appropriate in a house of worship, and of course the Byzantines had their own iconoclastic controversy.
The Catholic and Orthodox tradition of statuary is really a throwback to Greco-Roman paganism.
Hagia Sofia is well worth a visit, but Ravenna is better still for mosaics.
Constantinople had very much declined as a city before it fell to the Ottamans.
That sums it up - Leave's project fear, coupled with project Big Lie (£350/million/week) won it for them.
If UEFA got to decide who won the Champions League without any football being played and the UEFA chiefs were all saying Hamilton Academicals should win then that would be equivalent.
It's possible we'd still have a Roman Empire, if it weren't for the Fourth Crusade in the 13th century and the failure of the West to come to Constantinople's aid in the 15th.
People don't realise that part of the Renaissance was fleeing Byzantine scholars, who brought art and books with them revitalising Western interest in the classical world.
Anyway, the past is long since gone. I'm not arguing Istanbul shouldn't be Turkish or anything like that. I just like the idea of a civilisation twenty-two centuries old surviving a bit longer rather than being wiped out.
In happier news, my boots arrived and they feel, initially, rather more comfortable.
Essentially it needs to meet all the human rights and economic conditions, and convince the EU27 that it has done so, and in good faith.
We should encourage and support them to do so, but obviously there is a long way to go and that Turkey would be a very different country to the current one, just as a CL winning Academicals team might need a few new signings.
No deceit involved, the steps are all there to be seen.
https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/chapters-of-the-acquis_en
Accession to the EU is covered by Article 49, which amuses me for some obscure reason.
I think it's a fantastic place to visit, but living there is probably quite unpleasant due to the almost total lack of green space.
Defeat was not necessarily inevitable. The Knights of St John, fighting on Rhodes, proved that. The Latins preferred a Turkish triumph to a Byzantine one.
You're right that the strategic picture was bleak, though.
Also, a lot of artwork, artefacts and literature were destroyed when the city fell. If nothing else, that caused a permanent cultural loss.
I wonder if any other head of state has had a death as poignantly tragic as Constantine Dragases?
Sometimes, people would have an icon of a saint or Mary as a godparent. On the other sight, iconoclasts smashed countless works of art. Eventually it calmed down, and neither lunatic fringe won (a sort of soft iconodule was the result).
Edited extra bit: Mr. Blue, aye, but the Eastern Empire is little known of by the general public. It's a real shame.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-23/australia-faces-housing-hangover-twice-size-of-u-s-subprime-era
Another one to file under 'Ain't gonna happen'.
Ireland might well be the rock on which a Brexit *deal* founders. It won't, however, stop the fact of Brexit.
The anger stage will pass, Richard.
May you have a long and happy municipality.
Anyone who thinks James Cleverly should be the next leader of the Conservative party should think again. He’s deluding himself if he believes that all of Corbyn’s young voters thought Corbyn would ‘stop Brexit’. As Stephen Bush notes:
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/932920931672043520
Patronising voters won’t win them over. If this the Tories idea of pointing out Corbyn’s drawbacks then they have some issues.
- Ruled out an early election
- Ruled out invoking Article 50 before having a strategy
- Ruled out a second referendum
Her plan has been hidden in plain sight all along.
Mind you, I'm all in favour of wishful thinking in politics, it makes political betting so profitable.
In that spirit, Conservatives are not handling Corbyn at all well. Current attitudes remind me of certain Labour attitudes towards Cameron in the late 00s. Remember that Gene Hunt poster.
The Indian minister talked about freedom of movement and business visas, not immigration
I think the remainers are about to collide with democracy as TM delivers her offer enveloppe in good will but is quite prepared to end talks if the EU reject it and i might add, would receive big backing in the Country .
The greatest shame is that David Cameron didn't do it earlier
It also assumes ongoing UK adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Tories are also keen for us to pull out of, I believe.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/irish-border-hard-brexit-ireland
Daffarn and O'Connor shared a theory that Kensington and Chelsea - a London borough more widely known for its museums, designer shops and flower shows - actually wanted its council estates to go into decline, so that the residents would leave and expensive flats could be built in this sought-after location.
http://www.bbc.com/news/stories-42072477
We know that the council spent some crazy amount per flat renovating them. This kind of reporting of fake news is how we got all those claims of 100s dead and the authorities hiding the true number.
Hold the front pages lads, I think the last 18 months may have been based on a COMPLETE MISCONCEPTION!
More specifically they should be targeting different messages at different segments. They can run the IRA/Hamas/Stalin/Marxist stuff at older voters, most of whom will be extremely receptive to it. They should keep well away from that angle on any media aimed at younger voters, for whom 'Well-meaning guy, but hopeless in practice' should be the message, backed up by concrete examples of how they would be impacted by Corbynomics.
Of course, to get this right requires someone with a really good political sense for what works. That's a bit of a problem at the moment..
We are leaving come what may
Mr. Urquhart, the Independent has been guilty of recent fake news, with the false story about MPs (evil Tories, of course) voting that animals aren't sentient. They've since retracted.
Not Junker, Clegg or Soubry..
https://twitter.com/HuffPostUK/status/934021622402609152
A percent here, a percent there, makes the difference between winning or not winning a majority.