Blimey, just noticed the figures in that YouGov survey for 'the level of crime' being a big concern - 5% to 14% for six out of seven countries, 42% for Sweden!
So letting in hundreds of thousands of young men from societies with very different gender norms and no rule of law hasn’t been an unqualified success? Truly shocking.
Oh dear....I really do think you are making a massive and quite a racist assumption here....
first I doubt very much that the wave of immigrants are the one's responsible for fraud which probably requires a good knowledge of the Swedish language and IT systems,
and second the rise in sexual offences is something that is being replicated across the west...a big driver for this is that women quite rightly are realising that what they have been subjected to forever is actually some kind of sexual assault...
Sort of on topic, apparently John McDonnell was hinting in Davos today that Labour might back a universal minimum income and that they are actively investigating the idea. I suspect that might go down very well with this section of the electorate.
Universal income won't go down well with the working class.
Never mind the bond markets.
I would have thought that nothing would please Jezza and Macca more than upsetting the bond markets.
Oh of course until the next Treasury auction but them's capitalist running dog details.
Blimey, just noticed the figures in that YouGov survey for 'the level of crime' being a big concern - 5% to 14% for six out of seven countries, 42% for Sweden!
So letting in hundreds of thousands of young men from societies with very different gender norms and no rule of law hasn’t been an unqualified success? Truly shocking.
Oh dear....I really do think you are making a massive and quite a racist assumption here....
first I doubt very much that the wave of immigrants are the one's responsible for fraud which probably requires a good knowledge of the Swedish language and IT systems,
and second the rise in sexual offences is something that is being replicated across the west...a big driver for this is that women quite rightly are realising that what they have been subjected to forever is actually some kind of sexual assault...
Hm, that doesn’t seem to match accounts from Sweden and Germany reported in the press.
Blimey, just noticed the figures in that YouGov survey for 'the level of crime' being a big concern - 5% to 14% for six out of seven countries, 42% for Sweden!
So letting in hundreds of thousands of young men from societies with very different gender norms and no rule of law hasn’t been an unqualified success? Truly shocking.
Oh dear....I really do think you are making a massive and quite a racist assumption here....
first I doubt very much that the wave of immigrants are the one's responsible for fraud which probably requires a good knowledge of the Swedish language and IT systems,
and second the rise in sexual offences is something that is being replicated across the west...a big driver for this is that women quite rightly are realising that what they have been subjected to forever is actually some kind of sexual assault...
The only person bringing race into this is you. It is cultural difference which is the root cause of the problems.
If you want to delude yourself that #metoo and the President’s Club is as serious as the entrenched misogyny in the societies which are providing most of the migrants crossing the Mediterranean, be my guest.
Sort of on topic, apparently John McDonnell was hinting in Davos today that Labour might back a universal minimum income and that they are actively investigating the idea. I suspect that might go down very well with this section of the electorate.
Universal income won't go down well with the working class.
Never mind the bond markets.
It’d go down as the biggest election bribe in political history.
I'd have thought it would be a libertarian fantasy......the role of the state is reduced to collecting tax and dishing it out....you could even take it to an extreme...just dish out a lump sum and then let people spend it on what they want,. education, health...the only thing the state is responsible for is security and most of that could be franchised out....
Sort of on topic, apparently John McDonnell was hinting in Davos today that Labour might back a universal minimum income and that they are actively investigating the idea. I suspect that might go down very well with this section of the electorate.
Universal income won't go down well with the working class.
Never mind the bond markets.
It’d go down as the biggest election bribe in political history.
I'd have thought it would be a libertarian fantasy......the role of the state is reduced to collecting tax and dishing it out....you could even take it to an extreme...just dish out a lump sum and then let people spend it on what they want,. education, health...the only thing the state is responsible for is security and most of that could be franchised out....
When most jobs are done by AI and robots what would be the best way of sharing the wealth generated?
Sort of on topic, apparently John McDonnell was hinting in Davos today that Labour might back a universal minimum income and that they are actively investigating the idea. I suspect that might go down very well with this section of the electorate.
Universal income won't go down well with the working class.
Never mind the bond markets.
It’d go down as the biggest election bribe in political history.
I'd have thought it would be a libertarian fantasy......the role of the state is reduced to collecting tax and dishing it out....you could even take it to an extreme...just dish out a lump sum and then let people spend it on what they want,. education, health...the only thing the state is responsible for is security and most of that could be franchised out....
When most jobs are done by AI and robots what would be the best way of sharing the wealth generated?
Blimey, just noticed the figures in that YouGov survey for 'the level of crime' being a big concern - 5% to 14% for six out of seven countries, 42% for Sweden!
So letting in hundreds of thousands of young men from societies with very different gender norms and no rule of law hasn’t been an unqualified success? Truly shocking.
Oh dear....I really do think you are making a massive and quite a racist assumption here....
first I doubt very much that the wave of immigrants are the one's responsible for fraud which probably requires a good knowledge of the Swedish language and IT systems,
and second the rise in sexual offences is something that is being replicated across the west...a big driver for this is that women quite rightly are realising that what they have been subjected to forever is actually some kind of sexual assault...
The only person bringing race into this is you. It is cultural difference which is the root cause of the problems.
If you want to delude yourself that #metoo and the President’s Club is as serious as the entrenched misogyny in the societies which are providing most of the migrants crossing the Mediterranean, be my guest.
Comrade, there is nothing in that crime data that suggests any link to recent immigration. You have assumed that.
I would be surprised if there was a link to be honest...first generation immigrants are almost universally well behaved, a few exceptions granted...
Blimey, just noticed the figures in that YouGov survey for 'the level of crime' being a big concern - 5% to 14% for six out of seven countries, 42% for Sweden!
So letting in hundreds of thousands of young men from societies with very different gender norms and no rule of law hasn’t been an unqualified success? Truly shocking.
Blimey, just noticed the figures in that YouGov survey for 'the level of crime' being a big concern - 5% to 14% for six out of seven countries, 42% for Sweden!
So letting in hundreds of thousands of young men from societies with very different gender norms and no rule of law hasn’t been an unqualified success? Truly shocking.
Oh dear....I really do think you are making a massive and quite a racist assumption here....
first I doubt very much that the wave of immigrants are the one's responsible for fraud which probably requires a good knowledge of the Swedish language and IT systems,
and second the rise in sexual offences is something that is being replicated across the west...a big driver for this is that women quite rightly are realising that what they have been subjected to forever is actually some kind of sexual assault...
The only person bringing race into this is you. It is cultural difference which is the root cause of the problems.
If you want to delude yourself that #metoo and the President’s Club is as serious as the entrenched misogyny in the societies which are providing most of the migrants crossing the Mediterranean, be my guest.
Comrade, there is nothing in that crime data that suggests any link to recent immigration. You have assumed that.
I would be surprised if there was a link to be honest...first generation immigrants are almost universally well behaved, a few exceptions granted...
Sort of on topic, apparently John McDonnell was hinting in Davos today that Labour might back a universal minimum income and that they are actively investigating the idea. I suspect that might go down very well with this section of the electorate.
Universal income won't go down well with the working class.
Never mind the bond markets.
It’d go down as the biggest election bribe in political history.
I'd have thought it would be a libertarian fantasy......the role of the state is reduced to collecting tax and dishing it out....you could even take it to an extreme...just dish out a lump sum and then let people spend it on what they want,. education, health...the only thing the state is responsible for is security and most of that could be franchised out....
When most jobs are done by AI and robots what would be the best way of sharing the wealth generated?
That said A1 and the robots might not be too happy working away to serve a feckless, useless human class that is destroying the planet...if I was them I'd wipe most of us out, and keep a few as pets which they could walk around on leashes....
Germany embraces huge opportunities and exports five times as much as the UK to China. They didn't need a clean break with the Single Market and Customs Union to achieve that, They are just better at exporting. FTAs are not a silver bullet but a delusion.
Germany embraces huge opportunities and exports five times as much as the UK to China. They didn't need a clean break with the Single Market and Customs Union to achieve that, They are just better at exporting. FTAs are not a silver bullet but a delusion.
No doubt helped by their favourable position within the eurozone.
Germany embraces huge opportunities and exports five times as much as the UK to China. They didn't need a clean break with the Single Market and Customs Union to achieve that, They are just better at exporting. FTAs are not a silver bullet but a delusion.
Because Germany actually makes stuff and nurtures its businesses.
Blimey, just noticed the figures in that YouGov survey for 'the level of crime' being a big concern - 5% to 14% for six out of seven countries, 42% for Sweden!
So letting in hundreds of thousands of young men from societies with very different gender norms and no rule of law hasn’t been an unqualified success? Truly shocking.
Oh dear....I really do think you are making a massive and quite a racist assumption here....
first I doubt very much that the wave of immigrants are the one's responsible for fraud which probably requires a good knowledge of the Swedish language and IT systems,
and second the rise in sexual offences is something that is being replicated across the west...a big driver for this is that women quite rightly are realising that what they have been subjected to forever is actually some kind of sexual assault...
The only person bringing race into this is you. It is cultural difference which is the root cause of the problems.
If you want to delude yourself that #metoo and the President’s Club is as serious as the entrenched misogyny in the societies which are providing most of the migrants crossing the Mediterranean, be my guest.
Comrade, there is nothing in that crime data that suggests any link to recent immigration. You have assumed that.
I would be surprised if there was a link to be honest...first generation immigrants are almost universally well behaved, a few exceptions granted...
First generation migrants that meet the requirements for residency through asylum/kinship or Govt policy are one thing- they are the one's I'm talking about....those coming over without any status, or any hope of achieving residential status are quite another
Blimey, just noticed the figures in that YouGov survey for 'the level of crime' being a big concern - 5% to 14% for six out of seven countries, 42% for Sweden!
So letting in hundreds of thousands of young men from societies with very different gender norms and no rule of law hasn’t been an unqualified success? Truly shocking.
Oh dear....I really do think you are making a massive and quite a racist assumption here....
first I doubt very much that the wave of immigrants are the one's responsible for fraud which probably requires a good knowledge of the Swedish language and IT systems,
and second the rise in sexual offences is something that is being replicated across the west...a big driver for this is that women quite rightly are realising that what they have been subjected to forever is actually some kind of sexual assault...
The only person bringing race into this is you. It is cultural difference which is the root cause of the problems.
If you want to delude yourself that #metoo and the President’s Club is as serious as the entrenched misogyny in the societies which are providing most of the migrants crossing the Mediterranean, be my guest.
Comrade, there is nothing in that crime data that suggests any link to recent immigration. You have assumed that.
I would be surprised if there was a link to be honest...first generation immigrants are almost universally well behaved, a few exceptions granted...
First generation migrants that meet the requirements for residency through asylum/kinship or Govt policy are one thing- they are the one's I'm talking about....those coming over without any status, or any hope of achieving residential status are quite another
I thought Germany granted asylum to the lot, and that the problem isn’t with illegal immigration, rather that they granted asylum to hundreds of thousands.
I'd have thought it would be a libertarian fantasy......the role of the state is reduced to collecting tax and dishing it out....you could even take it to an extreme...just dish out a lump sum and then let people spend it on what they want,. education, health...the only thing the state is responsible for is security and most of that could be franchised out....
Doesn't sound quite right, although I'm not an expert on libertarianism. It could be seen as very progressive, although would probably have pros and cons for traditional "left" and "right".
Why do you post these falsehoods? Norway has to follow about 25% of EU legislation, and gets its own seat in forums which represent the original source of much supposedly ‘EU’ legislation. Your thoughts are 20 years out of date.
Falsehood, eh? That seems a bit heavy. From the Norwegian Government's own report, Outside and Inside:
Norway has adopted roughly ¾ of EU legislation compared to those Member States that participate in everything
It goes on to describe the relationship with the EU as an attempt to do the impossible – to simultaneously participate and to not participate. - Good way of putting it - On the one hand Norway is outside of the EU and formally retains its sovereignty, on the other hand Norway participates on a mutually binding basis in large parts of the EU cooperation. On the one side, the agreements between Norway and the EU formally are agreements under international law. On the other side they connect Norway to a supranational and dynamic political union, and demand continuous adaptation to its rules. This raises a range of principle issues – about democratic legitimacy, sovereignty, openness etc.
In practical terms, this form of association has turned out to be less problematic. It has generally functioned as intended, and better than many thought it would.
It's an interesting read and very relevant to us given we will probably end up in a similar situation. One point that particularly struck me:
Another characteristic of the relationship between Norway and the EU is that it is asymmetrical. This applies at several levels. One thing is the difference in size between a small country and a large organisation with 27 member states. Another and more interesting observation is that the EEA has never been viewed as an agreement between equals... EFTA was already in 1989-92 a “demandeur”, to use a foreign policy expression – the one that is asking something of the other ...
When there is an asymmetrical balance of power and interests it is particularly important for the weaker party to secure commitments from the stronger party through legal agreements. ... Norway, as a small and wealthy country, with an open economy and great natural resources, has “a particularly deep dependence, and with that a lasting real-political interest in, a well-functioning and well regulated international community”. This means that the international legal order and multinational governance and regimes should be viewed as “Norway’s primary and prioritised foreign policy interest”
In other words, those same rules that they have no choice in implementing also protect the weaker party in the relationship.
Blimey, just noticed the figures in that YouGov survey for 'the level of crime' being a big concern - 5% to 14% for six out of seven countries, 42% for Sweden!
So letting in hundreds of thousands of young men from societies with very different gender norms and no rule of law hasn’t been an unqualified success? Truly shocking.
Oh dear....I really do think you are making a massive and quite a racist assumption here....
first I doubt very much that the wave of immigrants are the one's responsible for fraud which probably requires a good knowledge of the Swedish language and IT systems,
and second the rise in sexual offences is something that is being replicated across the west...a big driver for this is that women quite rightly are realising that what they have been subjected to forever is actually some kind of sexual assault...
The only person bringing race into this is you. It is cultural difference which is the root cause of the problems.
If you want to delude yourself that #metoo and the President’s Club is as serious as the entrenched misogyny in the societies which are providing most of the migrants crossing the Mediterranean, be my guest.
Comrade, there is nothing in that crime data that suggests any link to recent immigration. You have assumed that.
I would be surprised if there was a link to be honest...first generation immigrants are almost universally well behaved, a few exceptions granted...
Why do you post these falsehoods? Norway has to follow about 25% of EU legislation, and gets its own seat in forums which represent the original source of much supposedly ‘EU’ legislation. Your thoughts are 20 years out of date.
Falsehood, eh? That seems a bit heavy. From the Norwegian Government's own report, Outside and Inside:
Norway has adopted roughly ¾ of EU legislation compared to those Member States that participate in everything
It goes on to describe the relationship with the EU as an attempt to do the impossible – to simultaneously participate and to not participate. - Good way of putting it - On the one hand Norway is outside of the EU and formally retains its sovereignty, on the other hand Norway participates on a mutually binding basis in large parts of the EU cooperation. On the one side, the agreements between Norway and the EU formally are agreements under international law. On the other side they connect Norway to a supranational and dynamic political union, and demand continuous adaptation to its rules. This raises a range of principle issues – about democratic legitimacy, sovereignty, openness etc.
In practical terms, this form of association has turned out to be less problematic. It has generally functioned as intended, and better than many thought it would.
It's an interesting read and very relevant to us given we will probably end up in a similar situation. One point that particularly struck me:
Another characteristic of the relationship between Norway and the EU is that it is asymmetrical. This applies at several levels. One thing is the difference in size between a small country and a large organisation with 27 member states. Another and more interesting observation is that the EEA has never been viewed as an agreement between equals... EFTA was already in 1989-92 a “demandeur”, to use a foreign policy expression – the one that is asking something of the other ...
When there is an asymmetrical balance of power and interests it is particularly important for the weaker party to secure commitments from the stronger party through legal agreements. ... Norway, as a small and wealthy country, with an open economy and great natural resources, has “a particularly deep dependence, and with that a lasting real-political interest in, a well-functioning and well regulated international community”. This means that the international legal order and multinational governance and regimes should be viewed as “Norway’s primary and prioritised foreign policy interest”
In other words, those same rules that they have no choice in implementing also protect the weaker party in the relationship.
Canada isn’t viewed as a vassal state of the EU, so why would the UK?
Blimey, just noticed the figures in that YouGov survey for 'the level of crime' being a big concern - 5% to 14% for six out of seven countries, 42% for Sweden!
So letting in hundreds of thousands of young men from societies with very different gender norms and no rule of law hasn’t been an unqualified success? Truly shocking.
Oh dear....I really do think you are making a massive and quite a racist assumption here....
first I doubt very much that the wave of immigrants are the one's responsible for fraud which probably requires a good knowledge of the Swedish language and IT systems,
and second the rise in sexual offences is something that is being replicated across the west...a big driver for this is that women quite rightly are realising that what they have been subjected to forever is actually some kind of sexual assault...
The only person bringing race into this is you. It is cultural difference which is the root cause of the problems.
If you want to delude yourself that #metoo and the President’s Club is as serious as the entrenched misogyny in the societies which are providing most of the migrants crossing the Mediterranean, be my guest.
Comrade, there is nothing in that crime data that suggests any link to recent immigration. You have assumed that.
I would be surprised if there was a link to be honest...first generation immigrants are almost universally well behaved, a few exceptions granted...
First generation migrants that meet the requirements for residency through asylum/kinship or Govt policy are one thing- they are the one's I'm talking about....those coming over without any status, or any hope of achieving residential status are quite another
I thought Germany granted asylum to the lot, and that the problem isn’t with illegal immigration, rather that they granted asylum to hundreds of thousands.
Syrians automatically got asylum in the Merkel wave, but the rest no...they have to go through the process and a high percentage either will not get it and returned, or simply disappear as they do in Italy.... And those ones who do not get residential status have little incentive to buy into the country that are refusing them....
Germany embraces huge opportunities and exports five times as much as the UK to China. They didn't need a clean break with the Single Market and Customs Union to achieve that, They are just better at exporting. FTAs are not a silver bullet but a delusion.
Because Germany actually makes stuff and nurtures its businesses.
Quite. They also use the EU FTAs and where they don't exist (eg China, USA) they totally put us in the shade. They export twice as much as us to the USA and well as five times as much to China.
FTAs aren't the answer to our exporting problems. Improving our products and selling capability is. It is the FTAs delusion that is causing the problem for the Tories because it is driving their need to be outside a customs union while keeping "frictionless" borders. They need to drop the FTA fantasy and face up to the real problems of UK exporting.
< Syrians automatically got asylum in the Merkel wave, but the rest no...they have to go through the process and a high percentage either will not get it and returned, or simply disappear as they do in Italy.... And those ones who do not get residential status have little incentive to buy into the country that are refusing them....
So what you are saying is that there may be a link between immigration and crime, as the earlier poster suggested, and you dismissed out of hand?
I wish Morris you'd show the same kind of forensic interest in this sport which only involves 2 people hitting a bouncy ball to each other, a net and a small court than the incredibly polluting and pointless fortnightly high speed procession usually following Lewis Hamilton's car
I doubt many 18 to 24s will switch to the Tories next time but if fewer of them turn out for Labour that could give Corbyn a problem
That is true. Brexit ambivalence is also a valid issue that will ensure many youngsters will not come out to vote Labour
Corbyn has to carefully balance his young voters support for Remain with his working class voters support for Leave
Given that polling shows a similar percentage of Conservatives support Remain to the number of Labour voters who support Leave, how do you suggest the Conservatives should try to perform the same careful balancing act?
The Tories are quite clear they want a FTA with the EU while leaving the single market and customs union and ending free movement, Labour is still not certain what it wants
And what if Conservative Remain supports don't want that and would prefer to stay in the single market?
Well they are likely already voting Labour or LD anyway if they put that as a priority above all given leaving the single market was in the last Tory manifesto and given the only main UK wide party committed to staying permanently in the EU, the LDs, got just 7% that position has few ardent supporters
Polling shows one fifth of people currently intending to vote Tory think that leaving the EU was the wrong decision. What does your position offer them?
It offers a position supported by 80% of Tory voters that's what, the other 20% just put other issues ahead of diehard Remainery
Syrians automatically got asylum in the Merkel wave, but the rest no...they have to go through the process and a high percentage either will not get it and returned, or simply disappear as they do in Italy.... And those ones who do not get residential status have little incentive to buy into the country that are refusing them....
And those who simply said they were Syrian? How extensive were the checks on their claimed nationality?
And those who "simply disappear"? We just forget about them, eh?
Sort of on topic, apparently John McDonnell was hinting in Davos today that Labour might back a universal minimum income and that they are actively investigating the idea. I suspect that might go down very well with this section of the electorate.
Universal income won't go down well with the working class.
Never mind the bond markets.
It’d go down as the biggest election bribe in political history.
I'd have thought it would be a libertarian fantasy......the role of the state is reduced to collecting tax and dishing it out....you could even take it to an extreme...just dish out a lump sum and then let people spend it on what they want,. education, health...the only thing the state is responsible for is security and most of that could be franchised out....
When most jobs are done by AI and robots what would be the best way of sharing the wealth generated?
That said A1 and the robots might not be too happy working away to serve a feckless, useless human class that is destroying the planet...if I was them I'd wipe most of us out, and keep a few as pets which they could walk around on leashes....
If they head in that direction they may well end up infighting and destroying themselves anyway
Mr. Tyson, I do love the pollution of F1, it's true.
On tennis, I did used to bet on it regularly, but two major factors put me off. Firstly, my record was patchier than the quilt of someone suffering gastroenteritis. Secondly, there were some, ahem special and unexpected results in some tournaments.
Not to mention, although I am, that Betfair stupidly changed the way they show stats. Instead of a dedicated page with a single click to move from one head-to-head comparison to the next, it now requires rather more time. When you might want to compare 20-40 match-ups, that really does make it a pain in the backside (and I don't have anything like the knowledge level for tennis that I do for F1).
However, it is important to remember that I tipped Murray to win the 2012 Olympic gold at 9.
< Syrians automatically got asylum in the Merkel wave, but the rest no...they have to go through the process and a high percentage either will not get it and returned, or simply disappear as they do in Italy.... And those ones who do not get residential status have little incentive to buy into the country that are refusing them....
So what you are saying is that there may be a link between immigration and crime, as the earlier poster suggested, and you dismissed out of hand?
Yes....I think I have been skewered.... When I worked in the children's courts as a special advisor I was utterly useless, often pulled apart by solicitors or barristers and reduced to...... "err, err, err what I meant was.....err,"
Universal income - fascinating idea whose time is surely coming. Would be quite brave to be the first major economy to do it though.
It is not needed now and would just add a huge cost to the welfare bill, if 30 to 40%+ of jobs are replaced by robots and AI and not replaced then maybe it could be reconsidered and funded by a tax on those same robots and AI
I wish Morris you'd show the same kind of forensic interest in this sport which only involves 2 people hitting a bouncy ball to each other, a net and a small court than the incredibly polluting and pointless fortnightly high speed procession usually following Lewis Hamilton's car
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Mr. Tyson, I do love the pollution of F1, it's true.
On tennis, I did used to bet on it regularly, but two major factors put me off. Firstly, my record was patchier than the quilt of someone suffering gastroenteritis. Secondly, there were some, ahem special and unexpected results in some tournaments.
Not to mention, although I am, that Betfair stupidly changed the way they show stats. Instead of a dedicated page with a single click to move from one head-to-head comparison to the next, it now requires rather more time. When you might want to compare 20-40 match-ups, that really does make it a pain in the backside (and I don't have anything like the knowledge level for tennis that I do for F1).
However, it is important to remember that I tipped Murray to win the 2012 Olympic gold at 9.
HenryG was our tennis guy....
I tipped Ferrer to go long in the US last year and he got knocked out in the first round...... I tipped Cheung to go long at Roland Garros yesterday, but on the evidence of this morning... Edmund may well be worth a shot at RG though...
Shapalovav is a tip for Wimbledon unless he has Federer early in his pathway who must be a nailed on certainty this year for Wimbledon. The Federer of 2018 would demolish the Federer of 2006.
Federer though is a banker....he is so well prepared for the slams...you can almost guarantee he gets at least to the quarters which brings down his price.....
I'm a real tennis nut...but don't particularly like betting on individual matches because it ruins my enjoyment of them
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Aren’t they just reporting what a third party stated?
No its not because Corbyn is a leaver -sorry Corbyn fanatics but look at his voting record in parliament.
I think the whole Corbyn youth thing is exaggerated. Yes Corbyn appeals to university students going through their Marxist Che Guevara teeshirt phase, and he appeals to particularly middle class students when he bribes them with the tuition fees promise. He even managed to con ex students when he promised to "deal with " existing debt. But as voters 18-25s remain a small minority and unable to swing elections on their own.
Corbyn cannot win a general election without winning 60 marginals in Tory middle England. And that means winning over a substantial number of over 50s. This he is signally failing to do.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Aren’t they just reporting what a third party stated?
Love the fact an audience at Davos is deemed something worth writing home about. Corbyn could fill an arena but it means nothing. Macron's supposed crowdpleasing amongst the elite clearly doesn't translate in his native France.
As for Dan Snow- a man who has built a career through nepotism and being out of touch with ordinary Brits. Well the less said the better.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Aren’t they just reporting what a third party stated?
Canada isn’t viewed as a vassal state of the EU, so why would the UK?
"Vassal state" is amusing because of its provenance from Rees-Mogg but it isn't a useful way to describe a situation we are very likely to end up in.
I blow hot and cold on whether "Canada", ie a preferential trade agreement with the EU, is ever likely to happen. It's hugely problematic. The first thing to realise is that Canada and Norway are different beasts and there isn't a spectrum between them. Norway isn't Canada with more of everything.
This is immediately obvious when open the two documents: Canada is 1600 pages long; Norway is 40 pages yet those 40 pages give you a lot more than the 1600 pages. That's because every nut and bolt has to be specified in a PTA. If it's not listed you don't get it. It's very inflexible. If you want a small change later on you don't get it without reopening negotiations. It takes years to negotiate - obviously the UK PTA would contain a different 1600 pages or so from the Canadian one. Negotiators will try to beat you down by conceding as little as possible and as expensively as possible against their requirements. That's what negotiators do. The normal pattern in these negotiations is that the other party can't take it any more at certain point and walks away, possibly for a while. We can't do that because we are negotiating against a ticking clock and don't have a default to fall back on. The negotiations are an order of magnitude more complex than for the Canadians, who were looking for a discretionary trade deal. We have the whole relationship to sort out including fisheries, aviation, nuclear waste, citizenship rights, Ireland, immigration, security and about 700 third party arrangements that the EU is involved with. The business uncertainty will do us no good while this is all dragging on, especially when the end result will be a mediocre one, at best.
Alternatively we can say, sign up the Single Market and Customs Union. We ratify the 40 pages and we meet all conditions already. Puts Brexit to bed.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Does it really matter.?? I don't give a feck about how many were there..There are so many on here and elsewhere itching for Brexit to be a disaster. I was absolutely against Brexit but we are where we are,. Everyone ought to be trying to make the best of it for our Country's sake, not trying to stab people in the back
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Does it really matter.?? I don't give a feck about how many were there..There are so many on here and elsewhere itching for Brexit to be a disaster. I was absolutely against Brexit but we are where we are,. Everyone ought to be trying to make the best of it for our Country's sake, not trying to stab people in the back
Yes it really matters if Britain has lost much of its influence as a result. It's a bit tragic when with Trumpian desperation Leavers try to convince themselves that black is white because black might mean something they don't want to think about.
Making the best of it means recognising reality. No service is being done to anyone by kidding yourself.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
It's interesting that the most pronounced swing to Remain is in the north of England.
Alex Turk, a senior research executive at ICM Unlimited, said: “On the results of this poll of 5,000, the result of a second EU referendum would be far from a foregone conclusion.”
To the extent that there is a shift towards remain, it is largely due to voters who did not, or could not, participate in the referendum saying they would be more likely to do so next time. Of those who voted, 90% said they would stick to their previous choice, and the numbers of people switching sides largely cancel each other out.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
The only second referendum that would make sense is:
"Do you want to leave the EU on the terms negotiated or rescind the notification and remain in the EU?"
Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining.
It's interesting that the most pronounced swing to Remain is in the north of England.
51% Remain 49% Leave on a revote on that poll so even closer than last time and solves absolutely nothing with the Midlands and Wales still voting Leave
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Does it really matter.?? I don't give a feck about how many were there..There are so many on here and elsewhere itching for Brexit to be a disaster. I was absolutely against Brexit but we are where we are,. Everyone ought to be trying to make the best of it for our Country's sake, not trying to stab people in the back
Yes it really matters if Britain has lost much of its influence as a result. It's a bit tragic when with Trumpian desperation Leavers try to convince themselves that black is white because black might mean something they don't want to think about.
Making the best of it means recognising reality. No service is being done to anyone by kidding yourself.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
I'm amazed that anyone would choose to listen to a speech by May given a straight choice vs. Trump. He's one of the most talked about people in history, for better or worse.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Does it really matter.?? I don't give a feck about how many were there..There are so many on here and elsewhere itching for Brexit to be a disaster. I was absolutely against Brexit but we are where we are,. Everyone ought to be trying to make the best of it for our Country's sake, not trying to stab people in the back
Reconciliation has been difficult due to
- talk of saboteurs - pursuit of a hard Brexit despite the very narrow vote - the prevalence of “cake-ist” ideology, aka head in the sand Brexit, aka magical thinking Brexit.
A majority now want a second referendum and persistently, polls suggest we wish - narrowly - to Remain.
Given the plebiscitary, rather than parliamentary, route into this disaster those are very salient facts for Team Brexit to take into consideration.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
My opinions don't count for anything in particular, but since you've asked:
1-question. I would favour a 3 way question. Based on the deal as outlined, should we take it, reject it and seek to leave with a minimal deal, reject it and seek to remain. (*could leave with EEA status in place of remain.)
2 -who will decide on the questions. parliament. It needs to be set in legislation.
3 - How long would a campaign last? Much shorter than before - the issues have been aired and going on last time, I doubt the campaign would be edifying or persuasive.
4 - How can a definitive EU position be available or guaranteed? There would need to be heads of terms of the deal to be voted on, and there would need to be a basic agreement on what leaving with rejecting the deal would mean, and what seeking to remain would mean. All the options would have to be known quantities, as far as possible in the short term.
5/6 - When should it be held. Late 2018 Nov/Dec. Enough time to get through parliament but allow for ratification across Europe.
7 - What if it is neck and neck? Then we are in real trouble as a country and it will be a failed gambit. In some ways I would prioritise a decisive result over the one I wanted. The winner has to find a way of uniting the country, and the whole reason the question of a 2nd referendum has not been put to bed is because the Government has been so tin-eared about the need to do so.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
Power is nothing without control, as the advert said. By Leaving, Britain is condemning itself to be a rule-taker rather than participating in rule-making. But the little Englanders will be happy that they can keep out the foreigners, so that's alright.
Canada isn’t viewed as a vassal state of the EU, so why would the UK?
"Vassal state" is amusing because of its provenance from Rees-Mogg but it isn't a useful way to describe a situation we are very likely to end up in.
I blow hot and cold on whether "Canada", ie a preferential trade agreement with the EU, is ever likely to happen. It's hugely problematic. The first thing to realise is that Canada and Norway are different beasts and there isn't a spectrum between them. Norway isn't Canada with more of everything.
This is immediately obvious when open the two documents: Canada is 1600 pages long; Norway is 40 pages yet those 40 pages give you a lot more than the 1600 pages. That's because every nut and bolt has to be specified in a PTA. If it's not listed you don't get it. It's very inflexible. If you want a small change later on you don't get it without reopening negotiations. It takes years to negotiate - obviously the UK PTA would contain a different 1600 pages or so from the Canadian one. Negotiators will try to beat you down by conceding as little as possible and as expensively as possible against their requirements. That's what negotiators do. The normal pattern in these negotiations is that the other party can't take it any more at certain point and walks away, possibly for a while. We can't do that because we are negotiating against a ticking clock and don't have a default to fall back on. The negotiations are an order of magnitude more complex than for the Canadians, who were looking for a discretionary trade deal. We have the whole relationship to sort out including fisheries, aviation, nuclear waste, citizenship rights, Ireland, immigration, security and about 700 third party arrangements that the EU is involved with. The business uncertainty will do us no good while this is all dragging on, especially when the end result will be a mediocre one, at best.
Alternatively we can say, sign up the Single Market and Customs Union. We ratify the 40 pages and we meet all conditions already. Puts Brexit to bed.
And all we lose if we sign up to the Single Market and Customs Union are the FTAs which are a distracting delusion.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
On the last thread there was a small discussion about ranking the worst recent prime ministers. There is a good case for Cameron. Ideally we'd ask for a suspension of the article 50 timetable and then do what he should have -- set up a royal commission into the different Brexit options and their likely consequences, and only at the end have a referendum.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
Power is nothing without control, as the advert said. By Leaving, Britain is condemning itself to be a rule-taker rather than participating in rule-making. But the little Englanders will be happy that they can keep out the foreigners, so that's alright.
You are contradicting yourself. You say we’d be a rule-taker outside the EU, but at the same time we would have the power to control immigration which we currently lack.
You might not want control over immigration to this country. That is an extreme position.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
The only second referendum that would make sense is:
"Do you want to leave the EU on the terms negotiated or rescind the notification and remain in the EU?"
Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining.
Really the answer is that it would be a complete horlicks
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
I've thought it about BigG....I can't over question the logistics for question one of yours? What should the question be? Presumably it has to be binary...it can't be do you want this deal, that deal, no deal or do you want to stay in the EU....
Presumably if May gets a deal then that's that. You are already out of the possibility of presenting a binary question. Parliament will ratify it. She'll get enough support.
A second referendum only becomes relevant surely if no deal can be made...and then a binary question can be presented...no deal or stay in..... Europe will of course enable this by revoking Article 50 if the vote is to stay.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
My opinions don't count for anything in particular, but since you've asked:
1-question. I would favour a 3 way question. Based on the deal as outlined, should we take it, reject it and seek to leave with a minimal deal, reject it and seek to remain. (*could leave with EEA status in place of remain.)
2 -who will decide on the questions. parliament. It needs to be set in legislation.
3 - How long would a campaign last? Much shorter than before - the issues have been aired and going on last time, I doubt the campaign would be edifying or persuasive.
4 - How can a definitive EU position be available or guaranteed? There would need to be heads of terms of the deal to be voted on, and there would need to be a basic agreement on what leaving with rejecting the deal would mean, and what seeking to remain would mean. All the options would have to be known quantities, as far as possible in the short term.
5/6 - When should it be held. Late 2018 Nov/Dec. Enough time to get through parliament but allow for ratification across Europe.
7 - What if it is neck and neck? Then we are in real trouble as a country and it will be a failed gambit. In some ways I would prioritise a decisive result over the one I wanted. The winner has to find a way of uniting the country, and the whole reason the question of a 2nd referendum has not been put to bed is because the Government has been so tin-eared about the need to do so.
I really appreciate your response. It is this detail remainer's need to start addressing as it is not going to be a straight yes no question. The big questions are 4 and 7 and 4 is most certainly the most difficult
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
Power is nothing without control, as the advert said. By Leaving, Britain is condemning itself to be a rule-taker rather than participating in rule-making. But the little Englanders will be happy that they can keep out the foreigners, so that's alright.
You are contradicting yourself. You say we’d be a rule-taker outside the EU, but at the same time we would have the power to control immigration which we currently lack.
You might not want control over immigration to this country. That is an extreme position.
I appreciate that you may be monomaniac about the subject, but there are other things to control than just immigration.
Britain already has considerable control over immigration. It chooses not to use many of those powers because those in authority (correctly in my view) regard immigration as a necessity. There also needs to be some recognition by Leavers - entirely absent so far as I can see - that hypothetical immigrants themselves have agency and won't just come at a peremptory command should Britain decide that it after all needs immigration.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
Power is nothing without control, as the advert said. By Leaving, Britain is condemning itself to be a rule-taker rather than participating in rule-making. But the little Englanders will be happy that they can keep out the foreigners, so that's alright.
You are contradicting yourself. You say we’d be a rule-taker outside the EU, but at the same time we would have the power to control immigration which we currently lack.
You might not want control over immigration to this country. That is an extreme position.
On paper it is an extreme position but in practice such prominent Brexiteers as Boris Johnson and Theresa May have either encouraged immigration or done nothing to limit it when it was within their purview. For all the fuss that is made, it is not clear how or even if any conceivable future government would choose to exercise this new-found freedom. As with the wider Brexit, this is not an aspect to which anyone appears to have given much thought or public debate.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
Very good questions.
I *do* favour a second referendum on the grounds that the first, which presented an unfathomable possibility against a flawed reality, did not properly settle the Brexit question.
I recognise it’s far from ideal - it would stir up further passion and division - but if there is anything at all positive about Brexi it is as a democratic process.
It should be a binary question.
Should we stay, or should we leave per the results of negotiatIon.
An independent body should of course decide the question. The campaign should be short - one month is enough.
A definitive EU position cannot be guaranteed but we will understand infinitely more about that position than we did in June 16.
It should be held at the conclusion of transition negotiations but before formal Brexit. Late 18 or even early 19.
If it is still neck and neck (which seems likely), I think having voted twice and with some year’s debate, we must follow the results - whatever they may be.
That looks credible. Subjectively my impression is that the youth wave has calmed down as Corbyn has been far less in the news but it's been broadly balanced by a move among older people to feel that a Corbyn government is not as horrific a prospect as they previously thought. What is quite impressive is the May fan club still hanging in there, seemingly in the teeth of opinion of most of the Cabinet, the Parliamentary Conservative Party and the media. 38% feeling she's doing well is really pretty striking.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
The only second referendum that would make sense is:
"Do you want to leave the EU on the terms negotiated or rescind the notification and remain in the EU?"
Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining.
Alistair....that doesn't provide for those who want out of the EU...and many of those who voted in 2016 want out, no deal.
As I said, the only real pathway to a second referendum is for no deal to be agreed and then Parliament to put this out to a vote.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
I've thought it about BigG....I can't over question the logistics for question one of yours? What should the question be? Presumably it has to be binary...it can't be do you want this deal, that deal, no deal or do you want to stay in the EU....
Presumably if May gets a deal then that's that. You are already out of the possibility of presenting a binary question. Parliament will ratify it. She'll get enough support.
A second referendum only becomes relevant surely if no deal can be made...and then a binary question can be presented...no deal or stay in..... Europe will of course enable this by revoking Article 50 if the vote is to stay.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
It wouldn't be called a second referendum but a referendum on the terms.
What should the questions be? Do you accept the terms that the Government have negotiated for exiting the EU or do you reject them and prefer to stay in the EU? Who will decide on the questions? Parliament (with input from the electoral commission). It would follow a rejection by Parliament of the negotiated terms and an acceptance of an amendment to hold a referendum on the terms so that voters have the final say. This would occur in November this year.
How long would a campaign last? Eight weeks.
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed? The Government would present the deal that they have agreed (in outline) with the EU. When should it be held? January and February 2019.
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL? Six weeks from mid November.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
Very good questions.
I *do* favour a second referendum on the grounds that the first, which presented an unfathomable possibility against a flawed reality, did not properly settle the Brexit question.
I recognise it’s far from ideal - it would stir up further passion and division - but if there is anything at all positive about Brexi it is as a democratic process.
It should be a binary question.
Should we stay, or should we leave per the results of negotiatIon.
An independent body should of course decide the question. The campaign should be short - one month is enough.
A definitive EU position cannot be guaranteed but we will understand infinitely more about that position than we did in June 16.
It should be held at the conclusion of transition negotiations but before formal Brexit. Late 18 or even early 19.
If it is still neck and neck (which seems likely), I think having voted twice and with some year’s debate, we must follow the results - whatever they may be.
Thank you for your thoughts. It does show there are no easy answers to any of this
Yes. Cameron was, in the final analysis, a disaster. The cavalier approach to such a constitutionally profound issue is not a simple error of judgment, but verging on criminal.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
It wouldn't be called a second referendum but a referendum on the terms.
What should the questions be? Do you accept the terms that the Government have negotiated for exiting the EU or do you reject them and prefer to stay in the EU? Who will decide on the questions? Parliament (with input from the electoral commission). It would follow a rejection by Parliament of the negotiated terms and an acceptance of an amendment to hold a referendum on the terms so that voters have the final say. This would occur in November this year.
How long would a campaign last? Eight weeks.
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed? The Government would present the deal that they have agreed (in outline) with the EU. When should it be held? January and February 2019.
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL? Six weeks from mid November.
What if it is neck and neck? The majority wins.
Thank you - again the problem is the EU itself. Do we go back in with all our opt outs, do we have to agree to closer union, do we have to join the Euro, are we able to have some control over immigration, etc
Comments
first I doubt very much that the wave of immigrants are the one's responsible for fraud which probably requires a good knowledge of the Swedish language and IT systems,
and second the rise in sexual offences is something that is being replicated across the west...a big driver for this is that women quite rightly are realising that what they have been subjected to forever is actually some kind of sexual assault...
Next Friday marks the 75th anniversary of the heroic Red Army's glorious victory over the Fascist invader at Stalingrad!
Oh of course until the next Treasury auction but them's capitalist running dog details.
Edit: and let me repeat TOPPING’s welcome!
Loved you on Strictly.
If you want to delude yourself that #metoo and the President’s Club is as serious as the entrenched misogyny in the societies which are providing most of the migrants crossing the Mediterranean, be my guest.
You can send me a cheque, thx.
I would be surprised if there was a link to be honest...first generation immigrants are almost universally well behaved, a few exceptions granted...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42557828
Germany embraces huge opportunities and exports five times as much as the UK to China. They didn't need a clean break with the Single Market and Customs Union to achieve that, They are just better at exporting. FTAs are not a silver bullet but a delusion.
Norway has adopted roughly ¾ of EU legislation compared to those Member States that participate in everything
It goes on to describe the relationship with the EU as an attempt to do the impossible – to
simultaneously participate and to not participate. - Good way of putting it - On the one hand Norway is outside of the EU and formally retains its sovereignty, on the other hand Norway participates on a mutually binding basis in large parts of the EU cooperation. On the one side, the agreements between Norway and the EU formally are agreements under international law. On the other side they connect Norway to a supranational and dynamic political union, and demand continuous adaptation to its rules. This raises a range of principle issues – about democratic legitimacy, sovereignty, openness etc.
In practical terms, this form of association has turned out to be less problematic. It has
generally functioned as intended, and better than many thought it would.
It's an interesting read and very relevant to us given we will probably end up in a similar situation. One point that particularly struck me:
Another characteristic of the relationship between Norway and the EU is that it is asymmetrical. This applies at several levels. One thing is the difference in size between a
small country and a large organisation with 27 member states. Another and more interesting
observation is that the EEA has never been viewed as an agreement between equals... EFTA was already in 1989-92 a “demandeur”, to use a foreign policy expression – the one that is asking something of the other ...
When there is an asymmetrical balance of power and interests it is particularly important for
the weaker party to secure commitments from the stronger party through legal agreements.
... Norway, as a small and wealthy country, with an open economy and great natural resources, has “a particularly deep dependence, and with that a lasting real-political interest in, a well-functioning and well regulated international community”. This means that the international legal order and multinational governance and regimes should be viewed as
“Norway’s primary and prioritised foreign policy interest”
In other words, those same rules that they have no choice in implementing also protect the weaker party in the relationship.
FTAs aren't the answer to our exporting problems. Improving our products and selling capability is. It is the FTAs delusion that is causing the problem for the Tories because it is driving their need to be outside a customs union while keeping "frictionless" borders. They need to drop the FTA fantasy and face up to the real problems of UK exporting.
And those who "simply disappear"? We just forget about them, eh?
https://twitter.com/thehistoryguy/status/956781248223080449
On tennis, I did used to bet on it regularly, but two major factors put me off. Firstly, my record was patchier than the quilt of someone suffering gastroenteritis. Secondly, there were some, ahem special and unexpected results in some tournaments.
Not to mention, although I am, that Betfair stupidly changed the way they show stats. Instead of a dedicated page with a single click to move from one head-to-head comparison to the next, it now requires rather more time. When you might want to compare 20-40 match-ups, that really does make it a pain in the backside (and I don't have anything like the knowledge level for tennis that I do for F1).
However, it is important to remember that I tipped Murray to win the 2012 Olympic gold at 9.
When I worked in the children's courts as a special advisor I was utterly useless, often pulled apart by solicitors or barristers and reduced to...... "err, err, err what I meant was.....err,"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/ghost-general-election-theresa-may-davos-2018
"the hall was only two-thirds full to hear May speak".
That's pretty lamentable for a British Prime Minister.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/26/britons-favour-second-referendum-brexit-icm-poll?CMP=share_btn_tw
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
I tipped Ferrer to go long in the US last year and he got knocked out in the first round...... I tipped Cheung to go long at Roland Garros yesterday, but on the evidence of this morning... Edmund may well be worth a shot at RG though...
Shapalovav is a tip for Wimbledon unless he has Federer early in his pathway who must be a nailed on certainty this year for Wimbledon. The Federer of 2018 would demolish the Federer of 2006.
Federer though is a banker....he is so well prepared for the slams...you can almost guarantee he gets at least to the quarters which brings down his price.....
I'm a real tennis nut...but don't particularly like betting on individual matches because it ruins my enjoyment of them
I think the whole Corbyn youth thing is exaggerated. Yes Corbyn appeals to university students going through their Marxist Che Guevara teeshirt phase, and he appeals to particularly middle class students when he bribes them with the tuition fees promise. He even managed to con ex students when he promised to "deal with " existing debt. But as voters 18-25s remain a small minority and unable to swing elections on their own.
Corbyn cannot win a general election without winning 60 marginals in Tory middle England. And that means winning over a substantial number of over 50s. This he is signally failing to do.
As for Dan Snow- a man who has built a career through nepotism and being out of touch with ordinary Brits. Well the less said the better.
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Implementing-the-UKs-exit-from-the-European-Union-the-Deparment-for-International-Trade.pdf
The report, while measured in tone, is pretty damning.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5424349/theresa-may-gives-her-speech-to-a-half-empty-room-in-davos-as-the-crowds-rush-out-for-donald-trump/
And the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-united-nations-donald-trump-new-york-speech-a7958326.html
But no doubt the Spectator's correspondent, who evidently wasn't there, knows better.
I blow hot and cold on whether "Canada", ie a preferential trade agreement with the EU, is ever likely to happen. It's hugely problematic. The first thing to realise is that Canada and Norway are different beasts and there isn't a spectrum between them. Norway isn't Canada with more of everything.
This is immediately obvious when open the two documents: Canada is 1600 pages long; Norway is 40 pages yet those 40 pages give you a lot more than the 1600 pages. That's because every nut and bolt has to be specified in a PTA. If it's not listed you don't get it. It's very inflexible. If you want a small change later on you don't get it without reopening negotiations. It takes years to negotiate - obviously the UK PTA would contain a different 1600 pages or so from the Canadian one. Negotiators will try to beat you down by conceding as little as possible and as expensively as possible against their requirements. That's what negotiators do. The normal pattern in these negotiations is that the other party can't take it any more at certain point and walks away, possibly for a while. We can't do that because we are negotiating against a ticking clock and don't have a default to fall back on. The negotiations are an order of magnitude more complex than for the Canadians, who were looking for a discretionary trade deal. We have the whole relationship to sort out including fisheries, aviation, nuclear waste, citizenship rights, Ireland, immigration, security and about 700 third party arrangements that the EU is involved with. The business uncertainty will do us no good while this is all dragging on, especially when the end result will be a mediocre one, at best.
Alternatively we can say, sign up the Single Market and Customs Union. We ratify the 40 pages and we meet all conditions already. Puts Brexit to bed.
Making the best of it means recognising reality. No service is being done to anyone by kidding yourself.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
To the extent that there is a shift towards remain, it is largely due to voters who did not, or could not, participate in the referendum saying they would be more likely to do so next time. Of those who voted, 90% said they would stick to their previous choice, and the numbers of people switching sides largely cancel each other out.
"Do you want to leave the EU on the terms negotiated or rescind the notification and remain in the EU?"
Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining.
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
- talk of saboteurs
- pursuit of a hard Brexit despite the very narrow vote
- the prevalence of “cake-ist” ideology, aka head in the sand Brexit, aka magical thinking Brexit.
A majority now want a second referendum and persistently, polls suggest we wish - narrowly - to Remain.
Given the plebiscitary, rather than parliamentary, route into this disaster those are very salient facts for Team Brexit to take into consideration.
1-question. I would favour a 3 way question. Based on the deal as outlined, should we take it, reject it and seek to leave with a minimal deal, reject it and seek to remain. (*could leave with EEA status in place of remain.)
2 -who will decide on the questions. parliament. It needs to be set in legislation.
3 - How long would a campaign last? Much shorter than before - the issues have been aired and going on last time, I doubt the campaign would be edifying or persuasive.
4 - How can a definitive EU position be available or guaranteed? There would need to be heads of terms of the deal to be voted on, and there would need to be a basic agreement on what leaving with rejecting the deal would mean, and what seeking to remain would mean. All the options would have to be known quantities, as far as possible in the short term.
5/6 - When should it be held. Late 2018 Nov/Dec. Enough time to get through parliament but allow for ratification across Europe.
7 - What if it is neck and neck? Then we are in real trouble as a country and it will be a failed gambit. In some ways I would prioritise a decisive result over the one I wanted. The winner has to find a way of uniting the country, and the whole reason the question of a 2nd referendum has not been put to bed is because the Government has been so tin-eared about the need to do so.
LAB: 42% (+3)
CON: 39% (+2)
LDEM: 9% (-)
UKIP: 3% (-1)
GRN: 2% (-2)
Mori
You might not want control over immigration to this country. That is an extreme position.
Presumably if May gets a deal then that's that. You are already out of the possibility of presenting a binary question. Parliament will ratify it. She'll get enough support.
A second referendum only becomes relevant surely if no deal can be made...and then a binary question can be presented...no deal or stay in..... Europe will of course enable this by revoking Article 50 if the vote is to stay.
Britain already has considerable control over immigration. It chooses not to use many of those powers because those in authority (correctly in my view) regard immigration as a necessity. There also needs to be some recognition by Leavers - entirely absent so far as I can see - that hypothetical immigrants themselves have agency and won't just come at a peremptory command should Britain decide that it after all needs immigration.
I *do* favour a second referendum on the grounds that the first, which presented an unfathomable possibility against a flawed reality, did not properly settle the Brexit question.
I recognise it’s far from ideal - it would stir up further passion and division - but if there is anything at all positive about Brexi it is as a democratic process.
It should be a binary question.
Should we stay, or should we leave per the results of negotiatIon.
An independent body should of course decide the question. The campaign should be short - one month is enough.
A definitive EU position cannot be guaranteed but we will understand infinitely more about that position than we did in June 16.
It should be held at the conclusion of transition negotiations but before formal Brexit. Late 18 or even early 19.
If it is still neck and neck (which seems likely), I think having voted twice and with some year’s debate, we must follow the results - whatever they may be.
As I said, the only real pathway to a second referendum is for no deal to be agreed and then Parliament to put this out to a vote.
What should the questions be?
Do you accept the terms that the Government have negotiated for exiting the EU or do you reject them and prefer to stay in the EU?
Who will decide on the questions?
Parliament (with input from the electoral commission). It would follow a rejection by Parliament of the negotiated terms and an acceptance of an amendment to hold a referendum on the terms so that voters have the final say. This would occur in November this year.
How long would a campaign last?
Eight weeks.
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed?
The Government would present the deal that they have agreed (in outline) with the EU.
When should it be held?
January and February 2019.
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL?
Six weeks from mid November.
What if it is neck and neck?
The majority wins.
Must be a diversion from the good economic news, I guess.
That new referendum in full:
1) Stay in the EU
2) Remain in the EU
We're leaving; the country decided, the government have confirmed their approach, and so the civil service are working on it.
The more talk of a second referendum, the more clamour there will be for a clean break, for hard borders and for a short transition.
As ever, Remainers don't seem to know how to pick their battles.