Osborne doesn’t get things quite right. A customs union without the Single Market will still require customs checks in Northern Ireland and Dover/Calais to ensure that goods entering the EU are compatible with Single Market standards, and those entering the U.K. are compatible with ours. However, there will certainly not be a requirement to hold up every shipment thanks to data sharing, AEOs etc. Not having to pay any tariffs will help to preserve cross-border supply chains, but we still will need to spend money on customs infrastructure for standard assessment.
While it’s not my ideal solution, a customs union with the EU outside the Single Market will respect the referendum result, based on what I believe most Leave voters were voting on. The problem is that the small minority who thought it was about giving the U.K. the uninhibited right to negotiate its own trade deals largely sit on the Tory backbenches.
Trading Standards, not customs, surely. And not required for goods at the border.
11 by-elections today. There was a 12th in Wigan but it's been cancelled by court order after the resigning councillor denied that he had intended to stand down despite sending a resignation letter to the council. He argued that the letter stated he wanted to stand down but not immediately, and was misinterpreted by the council.
Osborne doesn’t get things quite right. A customs union without the Single Market will still require customs checks in Northern Ireland and Dover/Calais to ensure that goods entering the EU are compatible with Single Market standards, and those entering the U.K. are compatible with ours. However, there will certainly not be a requirement to hold up every shipment thanks to data sharing, AEOs etc. Not having to pay any tariffs will help to preserve cross-border supply chains, but we still will need to spend money on customs infrastructure for standard assessment.
While it’s not my ideal solution, a customs union with the EU outside the Single Market will respect the referendum result, based on what I believe most Leave voters were voting on. The problem is that the small minority who thought it was about giving the U.K. the uninhibited right to negotiate its own trade deals largely sit on the Tory backbenches.
Trading Standards, not customs, surely. And not required for goods at the border.
Whatever you want to call them, some kind of customs/compliance posts are most definitely required for goods at the border.
Single Market - standard compliance is confirmed at production source, hence no need for check on frontier.
Outside Single Market - standard compliance not confirmed at production source, hence risk-weighted approach to assessment carried out at the border. The risk-weighted bit is why not everything needs to be stopped and some kind of fudge is possible. Having no posts at all is a fudge too far.
Rubio didn't have an.answer to the question put to him by a seventeen year old - why do you take money from the NRA? This isn't an answer.
A potentially significant moment. Not in actually reducing the number of guns, but where people start saying, I don't accept the situation. The near total ban on guns in the UK came about after the Dunblane massacre when the question was asked, why does anyone need to carry guns, and no-one came up with an answer.
Because I believe in free speech and, so long as what they are advocating is legal, they have the same right to engage in the political process as anyone else
It's not free speech the NRA funds are buying - it's political influence.
Arm teachers, and the next schoolshooter takes a kid as a human shield - and starts shooting from behind them. Is the now armed teacher expected to risk killing the shield? No. Progress? Nil....
Arm the teachers and the next schoolshooter does not have to acquire weapons and bring them in. The weapons will already be there - just whack the teacher and take their weapon.
Also, how long until some teacher shoots another teacher or pupil in a row / fight / argument?
We're agreed - the idea is as dumb as a brick. Guns and schools don't mix, period.
Just when it looked as if Trump might just once do the right thing - normal service is resumed.
Politicians funded by gun manufacturers propose the manufacture of more guns. Unsurprising.
The US had no mass public or school shootings from 1950 to 1980. Since 2000 it has had more than 15.
If guns are solely the cause why are these shootings a recent phenomenon and rarely if ever occurred in the first 225 years of the nations existence despite the second amendment and the right to bear arms.
What is causing young men to do this now when they didn't before? Maybe we should be asking that question?
France is gun free but it didn't stop the Bataclan massacre - because you actually have to want to go out an commit such horrible acts whether guns are legal or not.
Because in the last 30 years firearms restrictions in the US have loosened considerably. Many major cities such as DC had gun bans but these were later declared unconstitutional
I find the right to buy, possess or use automatic rifles quite bizarre. I also find the story in the Guardian a few days ago that there are 7.7m people with more than 140 guns just bewildering. In fairness to the FBI their resources must be pretty thinly spread with that level of nutterdom tolerated.
The Guardian number is bullshit.
There are 310m guns in the United States (source).
If 7.7m had 140 guns each, then the rest of the United States must have minus 750 million or so.
Have to say, it was in the Guardian and it seemed odd. But even your link says that 8% of gun owners have 10 or more guns. That is still a lot of people. And I can't help feeling that with so many millions of guns around there will be a significant number that are not registered with anyone.
Watch out for those rabbits. I am sure they are vicious.
I don't think that is so extraordinary.
Firstly it's 8% of gun owners, not 8% of the country. Secondly many collect them as a hobby or for other reasons.
I know people who collect stamps, or coins or Games Workshop miniatures or all sorts of other things. Every one of those collectors would have 10 or more of whatever they collect.
Roughly a third of Americans are gun owners as I understand it. So that is approximately 100m people. Of whom 8m have 10 or more guns.
Here's the thing, unlike stamps or coins guns are dangerous. They can be used to hurt people. 10 guns to me sounds like the owner may have an unhealthy obsession with shooting things. This strikes me as sub-optimal.
Every gun is dangerous.
I wouldn't think nine guns are OK but ten is dangerous. One is dangerous. Ten seems a rather arbitary metric.
I agree that every gun is dangerous. The mindset of the person who thinks they need 10 or more of them is probably more so.
I find the right to buy, possess or use automatic rifles quite bizarre. I also find the story in the Guardian a few days ago that there are 7.7m people with more than 140 guns just bewildering. In fairness to the FBI their resources must be pretty thinly spread with that level of nutterdom tolerated.
The Guardian number is bullshit.
There are 310m guns in the United States (source).
If 7.7m had 140 guns each, then the rest of the United States must have minus 750 million or so.
Have to say, it was in the Guardian and it seemed odd. But even your link says that 8% of gun owners have 10 or more guns. That is still a lot of people. And I can't help feeling that with so many millions of guns around there will be a significant number that are not registered with anyone.
Watch out for those rabbits. I am sure they are vicious.
I don't think that is so extraordinary.
Firstly it's 8% of gun owners, not 8% of the country. Secondly many collect them as a hobby or for other reasons.
I know people who collect stamps, or coins or Games Workshop miniatures or all sorts of other things. Every one of those collectors would have 10 or more of whatever they collect.
Roughly a third of Americans are gun owners as I understand it. So that is approximately 100m people. Of whom 8m have 10 or more guns.
Here's the thing, unlike stamps or coins guns are dangerous. They can be used to hurt people. 10 guns to me sounds like the owner may have an unhealthy obsession with shooting things. This strikes me as sub-optimal.
Every gun is dangerous.
I wouldn't think nine guns are OK but ten is dangerous. One is dangerous. Ten seems a rather arbitary metric.
Except it is easier to keep control of one gun over ten, especially if you don't have to keep them locked up.
"Where's my gun?" "Oh, it's in its holster."
"Where's my tenth gun?" "Darned it, I'm a gun nut and I can only count to nine because i blew off my little pinkie whilst playing with my toys."
Not sure I agree with the logic. Earlier in the thread we had the example raised of a woman who feels she "needs" a gun as she's driving through a black district in Alabama.
Is that attitude and one gun less dangerous than someone who keeps a collection under lock and key in their home?
I find the right to buy, possess or use automatic rifles quite bizarre. I also find the story in the Guardian a few days ago that there are 7.7m people with more than 140 guns just bewildering. In fairness to the FBI their resources must be pretty thinly spread with that level of nutterdom tolerated.
The Guardian number is bullshit.
There are 310m guns in the United States (source).
If 7.7m had 140 guns each, then the rest of the United States must have minus 750 million or so.
Have to say, it was in the Guardian and it seemed odd. But even your link says that 8% of gun owners have 10 or more guns. That is still a lot of people. And I can't help feeling that with so many millions of guns around there will be a significant number that are not registered with anyone.
Watch out for those rabbits. I am sure they are vicious.
I don't think that is so extraordinary.
Firstly it's 8% of gun owners, not 8% of the country. Secondly many collect them as a hobby or for other reasons.
I know people who collect stamps, or coins or Games Workshop miniatures or all sorts of other things. Every one of those collectors would have 10 or more of whatever they collect.
Roughly a third of Americans are gun owners as I understand it. So that is approximately 100m people. Of whom 8m have 10 or more guns.
Here's the thing, unlike stamps or coins guns are dangerous. They can be used to hurt people. 10 guns to me sounds like the owner may have an unhealthy obsession with shooting things. This strikes me as sub-optimal.
Every gun is dangerous.
I wouldn't think nine guns are OK but ten is dangerous. One is dangerous. Ten seems a rather arbitary metric.
I agree that every gun is dangerous. The mindset of the person who thinks they need 10 or more of them is probably more so.
Arm teachers, and the next schoolshooter takes a kid as a human shield - and starts shooting from behind them. Is the now armed teacher expected to risk killing the shield? No. Progress? Nil....
Arm the teachers and the next schoolshooter does not have to acquire weapons and bring them in. The weapons will already be there - just whack the teacher and take their weapon.
Also, how long until some teacher shoots another teacher or pupil in a row / fight / argument?
We're agreed - the idea is as dumb as a brick. Guns and schools don't mix, period.
Just when it looked as if Trump might just once do the right thing - normal service is resumed.
Politicians funded by gun manufacturers propose the manufacture of more guns. Unsurprising.
The US had no mass public or school shootings from 1950 to 1980. Since 2000 it has had more than 15.
If guns are solely the cause why are these shootings a recent phenomenon and rarely if ever occurred in the first 225 years of the nations existence despite the second amendment and the right to bear arms.
What is causing young men to do this now when they didn't before? Maybe we should be asking that question?
France is gun free but it didn't stop the Bataclan massacre - because you actually have to want to go out an commit such horrible acts whether guns are legal or not.
Because in the last 30 years firearms restrictions in the US have loosened considerably. Many major cities such as DC had gun bans but these were later declared unconstitutional
Plus people act as copycats. Once the rubicon is crossed to have a school shooting every nutty hormonal and depressed teenager who can get their hands on their parents weapons has that idea already in their head.
I find the right to buy, possess or use automatic rifles quite bizarre. I also find the story in the Guardian a few days ago that there are 7.7m people with more than 140 guns just bewildering. In fairness to the FBI their resources must be pretty thinly spread with that level of nutterdom tolerated.
The Guardian number is bullshit.
There are 310m guns in the United States (source).
If 7.7m had 140 guns each, then the rest of the United States must have minus 750 million or so.
Have to say, it was in the Guardian and it seemed odd. But even your link says that 8% of gun owners have 10 or more guns. That is still a lot of people. And I can't help feeling that with so many millions of guns around there will be a significant number that are not registered with anyone.
Watch out for those rabbits. I am sure they are vicious.
I don't think that is so extraordinary.
Firstly it's 8% of gun owners, not 8% of the country. Secondly many collect them as a hobby or for other reasons.
I know people who collect stamps, or coins or Games Workshop miniatures or all sorts of other things. Every one of those collectors would have 10 or more of whatever they collect.
Roughly a third of Americans are gun owners as I understand it. So that is approximately 100m people. Of whom 8m have 10 or more guns.
Here's the thing, unlike stamps or coins guns are dangerous. They can be used to hurt people. 10 guns to me sounds like the owner may have an unhealthy obsession with shooting things. This strikes me as sub-optimal.
Every gun is dangerous.
I wouldn't think nine guns are OK but ten is dangerous. One is dangerous. Ten seems a rather arbitary metric.
I agree that every gun is dangerous. The mindset of the person who thinks they need 10 or more of them is probably more so.
The only safe number of guns is zero.
Agreed. But the scale thereafter is not linear. This was raised in the context of the FBI checking sources of concern like that dickhead that murdered children at his former school. My point is that it is a deep, large and murky pond for them to fish in.
Arm teachers, and the next schoolshooter takes a kid as a human shield - and starts shooting from behind them. Is the now armed teacher expected to risk killing the shield? No. Progress? Nil....
Arm the teachers and the next schoolshooter does not have to acquire weapons and bring them in. The weapons will already be there - just whack the teacher and take their weapon.
Also, how long until some teacher shoots another teacher or pupil in a row / fight / argument?
We're agreed - the idea is as dumb as a brick. Guns and schools don't mix, period.
Just when it looked as if Trump might just once do the right thing - normal service is resumed.
Politicians funded by gun manufacturers propose the manufacture of more guns. Unsurprising.
The US had no mass public or school shootings from 1950 to 1980. Since 2000 it has had more than 15.
If guns are solely the cause why are these shootings a recent phenomenon and rarely if ever occurred in the first 225 years of the nations existence despite the second amendment and the right to bear arms.
What is causing young men to do this now when they didn't before? Maybe we should be asking that question?
France is gun free but it didn't stop the Bataclan massacre - because you actually have to want to go out an commit such horrible acts whether guns are legal or not.
Because in the last 30 years firearms restrictions in the US have loosened considerably. Many major cities such as DC had gun bans but these were later declared unconstitutional
Plus people act as copycats. Once the rubicon is crossed to have a school shooting every nutty hormonal and depressed teenager who can get their hands on their parents weapons has that idea already in their head.
And the Internet acts as an echo chamber. Have a look at the “The_Donald” area of Reddit to get an insight into the minds of Trump supporters. It’s a scary place.
Not sure I agree with the logic. Earlier in the thread we had the example raised of a woman who feels she "needs" a gun as she's driving through a black district in Alabama.
Is that attitude and one gun less dangerous than someone who keeps a collection under lock and key in their home?
I understand your pov, but the chances are that someone with ten guns will not keep them all under lock and key. If they have ten guns in the US, then they'll probably take one wherever they legally go, just as the woman does, whilst the others are at best under lock and key, and at worst whereever the hell he left 'em.
Mr. Jessop, I largely agree. My main concern, though, is increased cockpit evacuation times, particularly if the car is overturned or buried within a soft barrier. Upside down and on fire, a driver's first thought won't be "Thank goodness for the halo" as he's struggling to escape a burning car.
I always think of Alonso’s accident in Australia 2016 as the case against the Halo. How would he have got out? (Also, one of the best F1 camera shots ever) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x45fLUTHCuk
Someone over on Guido has the solution to it all with this advice to the Government
Perhaps they should apply reverse physiology. Embrace the term 'the nasty party' and get out of the EU without anymore delay tactic negotiations. Pull up the drawbridge and only allow (cherry pick) those skilled workers and professionals that we need, rejecting all the others. Find all the illegal immigrants and deport them. Sack all the top level Civil Servants who actively delayed Brexit. Dismantle the BBC and remove any requirement for a TV Licence. 20 year prison sentence for being in possession of a knife, gun, rifle or acid. 20 year prison sentence for those proven to have committed or involved in 'Vote Rigging'. Build another 20 HM Prisons and place them on remote Shetland and Orkney Islands. Remove the requirement for a second chamber (House of Lords) and replace with a sensible 21st Century alternative. That's just for a starters . . .I'm sure I've forgotten a shed load.
Someone over on Guido has the solution to it all with this advice to the Government
Perhaps they should apply reverse physiology. Embrace the term 'the nasty party' and get out of the EU without anymore delay tactic negotiations. Pull up the drawbridge and only allow (cherry pick) those skilled workers and professionals that we need, rejecting all the others. Find all the illegal immigrants and deport them. Sack all the top level Civil Servants who actively delayed Brexit. Dismantle the BBC and remove any requirement for a TV Licence. 20 year prison sentence for being in possession of a knife, gun, rifle or acid. 20 year prison sentence for those proven to have committed or involved in 'Vote Rigging'. Build another 20 HM Prisons and place them on remote Shetland and Orkney Islands. Remove the requirement for a second chamber (House of Lords) and replace with a sensible 21st Century alternative. That's just for a starters . . .I'm sure I've forgotten a shed load.
We can reject the referendum result and the settlement, or rather the Government can. It's up to them to implement the will of the people, or explain why not. They now know the will of the people.
Dave went and negotiated but he didn't try very hard and was punished as a result. If the EU believe that playing really hardball will make us change our minds, they misread the British public, and they will also hurt themselves. Such a transparent cunning plan will only harden resolve.
If the Government come back again and say "Sorry, our masters have decided we can't leave without a punishment beating, so let's back down and grovel." do you really think that Remain could win another referendum?
I think for democratic legitimacy, we would need a referendum on the deal rather than just the Government's choice, otherwise there could be fury.
The EU could indeed play a dangerous game of "make the deal so bad they'll reject it", but they really should have learned from Dave's negotiation that people can and will say "Okay, then" to some pretty bad stuff if they think they're being railroaded.
Then again, of course the Government could complain that mutually contradictory requirements and the failure to provide cake to look at after it's been eaten is the EU's fault on such a referendum, but that's also a dangerous game as they're the ones who would be holding the baby if the deal was accepted.
It comes down to this: Can Leave (or the politicians who are now representing Leave, like it or not) provide a Brexit that does what was promised and does it acceptably well? Let the people have their say on it. What would you fear? Or is democracy only a card waved by Leave when it suits them?
We can reject the referendum result and the settlement, or rather the Government can. It's up to them to implement the will of the people, or explain why not. They now know the will of the people.
Dave went and negotiated but he didn't try very hard and was punished as a result. If the EU believe that playing really hardball will make us change our minds, they misread the British public, and they will also hurt themselves. Such a transparent cunning plan will only harden resolve.
If the Government come back again and say "Sorry, our masters have decided we can't leave without a punishment beating, so let's back down and grovel." do you really think that Remain could win another referendum?
I think for democratic legitimacy, we would need a referendum on the deal rather than just the Government's choice, otherwise there could be fury.
The EU could indeed play a dangerous game of "make the deal so bad they'll reject it", but they really should have learned from Dave's negotiation that people can and will say "Okay, then" to some pretty bad stuff if they think they're being railroaded.
Then again, of course the Government could complain that mutually contradictory requirements and the failure to provide cake to look at after it's been eaten is the EU's fault on such a referendum, but that's also a dangerous game as they're the ones who would be holding the baby if the deal was accepted.
It comes down to this: Can Leave (or the politicians who are now representing Leave, like it or not) provide a Brexit that does what was promised and does it acceptably well? Let the people have their say on it. What would you fear? Or is democracy only a card waved by Leave when it suits them?
We already had a vote on whether or not we leave. I am very comfortable on having a referendum on whether or not we accept the settlement but that should again be a binary choice with the alternative being we leave without a deal. Simply saying we will forget Brexit should not be an option.
Someone over on Guido has the solution to it all with this advice to the Government
Perhaps they should apply reverse physiology. Embrace the term 'the nasty party' and get out of the EU without anymore delay tactic negotiations. Pull up the drawbridge and only allow (cherry pick) those skilled workers and professionals that we need, rejecting all the others. Find all the illegal immigrants and deport them. Sack all the top level Civil Servants who actively delayed Brexit. Dismantle the BBC and remove any requirement for a TV Licence. 20 year prison sentence for being in possession of a knife, gun, rifle or acid. 20 year prison sentence for those proven to have committed or involved in 'Vote Rigging'. Build another 20 HM Prisons and place them on remote Shetland and Orkney Islands. Remove the requirement for a second chamber (House of Lords) and replace with a sensible 21st Century alternative. That's just for a starters . . .I'm sure I've forgotten a shed load.
Ah, you read Guido.
That explains a lot ...
Somebody mentioned a CIA Corbyn spy follow up
Cant remember who!
By the time I looked main story was about Labour donations being up Tory ones being down and Jezza raising more than all other parties put together.
Think they conclude Tories arent right wing enough funnily thats the conclusion in almost every thread on there.
The FBI have a crap job to do, but in the latest incident it was clear that multiple people had reported the shooter as being mentally unstable and acquiring big guns. They’ve questions to answer as to why they didn’t respond.
I suspect the answer is that (a) the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco is the responsible agency and therefore information flow between them and the FBI is weak, (b) they probably get told that 1000s of people are mentally unstable every year, (c) if you buy at a gun show, then there are no background checks. I could wander into a gun show tomorrow and buy a semiautomatic shotgun. (For the rabbits.)
Someone over on Guido has the solution to it all with this advice to the Government
Perhaps they should apply reverse physiology. Embrace the term 'the nasty party' and get out of the EU without anymore delay tactic negotiations. Pull up the drawbridge and only allow (cherry pick) those skilled workers and professionals that we need, rejecting all the others. Find all the illegal immigrants and deport them. Sack all the top level Civil Servants who actively delayed Brexit. Dismantle the BBC and remove any requirement for a TV Licence. 20 year prison sentence for being in possession of a knife, gun, rifle or acid. 20 year prison sentence for those proven to have committed or involved in 'Vote Rigging'. Build another 20 HM Prisons and place them on remote Shetland and Orkney Islands. Remove the requirement for a second chamber (House of Lords) and replace with a sensible 21st Century alternative. That's just for a starters . . .I'm sure I've forgotten a shed load.
Ah, you read Guido.
That explains a lot ...
Somebody mentioned a CIA Corbyn spy follow up
Cant remember who!
By the time I looked main story was about Labour donations being up Tory ones being down and Jezza raising more than all other parties put together.
Think they conclude Tories arent right wing enough funnily thats the conclusion in almost every thread on there.
Nah. You've been on Guido. You've been polluted. Soon you'll have a little shrine to Margaret Thatcher in the corner of your room, and staring at people who might be a little bit foreign.
To recover, kneel down in your nearest NHS A&E and pray to the memory of all the IRA martyrs who died freeing Venezuela from the evil grasp of the American oil companies ...
Arm teachers, and the next schoolshooter takes a kid as a human shield - and starts shooting from behind them. Is the now armed teacher expected to risk killing the shield? No. Progress? Nil....
Arm the teachers and the next schoolshooter does not have to acquire weapons and bring them in. The weapons will already be there - just whack the teacher and take their weapon.
Also, how long until some teacher shoots another teacher or pupil in a row / fight / argument?
We're agreed - the idea is as dumb as a brick. Guns and schools don't mix, period.
Just when it looked as if Trump might just once do the right thing - normal service is resumed.
Politicians funded by gun manufacturers propose the manufacture of more guns. Unsurprising.
The US had no mass public or school shootings from 1950 to 1980. Since 2000 it has had more than 15.
If guns are solely the cause why are these shootings a recent phenomenon and rarely if ever occurred in the first 225 years of the nations existence despite the second amendment and the right to bear arms.
What is causing young men to do this now when they didn't before? Maybe we should be asking that question?
France is gun free but it didn't stop the Bataclan massacre - because you actually have to want to go out an commit such horrible acts whether guns are legal or not.
Because in the last 30 years firearms restrictions in the US have loosened considerably. Many major cities such as DC had gun bans but these were later declared unconstitutional
America as had far stricter gun restrictions in the past. In the 70s the NRA change its stance towards more liberal gun laws and by 2000 they are now fanatically pro-gun ownership at the expense of all else.
The various 60s era firearm restrictions where about targetting Black Panther and other African American grpups
@another_richard The report predicts the COST of Brexit, ie the DIFFERENCE between the measures with Brexit and without. They were clear about what they are were doing and it is the only form of analysis that makes sense. If we say they got their modelling wrong, we owe it to the authors to base our criticism what they actually wrote, not what we falsely think they wrote.
People can point to growth nevertheless. Economists will say that growth has nothing to do with Brexit. In fact Brexit reduced it. We can come back and say, the reasons don't matter, we're ok.
The main takeaway for me is that it if you are doing something disruptive like Brexit, choose a worldwide economic boom to do it in. Sinking boats lift on a rising tide. The question is whether.the underperformance just lasts a year or two while the economy adjusts, which we will hardly notice, or whether the underperformance will continue year on year, which matters a LOT.
Do you ever give up trying to move the goalposts while the Treasury's shot heads out for a throw-in.
Comments
Single Market - standard compliance is confirmed at production source, hence no need for check on frontier.
Outside Single Market - standard compliance not confirmed at production source, hence risk-weighted approach to assessment carried out at the border. The risk-weighted bit is why not everything needs to be stopped and some kind of fudge is possible. Having no posts at all is a fudge too far.
Is that attitude and one gun less dangerous than someone who keeps a collection under lock and key in their home?
new thread
How would he have got out?
(Also, one of the best F1 camera shots ever)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x45fLUTHCuk
Perhaps they should apply reverse physiology. Embrace the term 'the nasty party' and get out of the EU without anymore delay tactic negotiations. Pull up the drawbridge and only allow (cherry pick) those skilled workers and professionals that we need, rejecting all the others. Find all the illegal immigrants and deport them. Sack all the top level Civil Servants who actively delayed Brexit. Dismantle the BBC and remove any requirement for a TV Licence. 20 year prison sentence for being in possession of a knife, gun, rifle or acid. 20 year prison sentence for those proven to have committed or involved in 'Vote Rigging'. Build another 20 HM Prisons and place them on remote Shetland and Orkney Islands. Remove the requirement for a second chamber (House of Lords) and replace with a sensible 21st Century alternative. That's just for a starters . . .I'm sure I've forgotten a shed load.
That explains a lot ...
The EU could indeed play a dangerous game of "make the deal so bad they'll reject it", but they really should have learned from Dave's negotiation that people can and will say "Okay, then" to some pretty bad stuff if they think they're being railroaded.
Then again, of course the Government could complain that mutually contradictory requirements and the failure to provide cake to look at after it's been eaten is the EU's fault on such a referendum, but that's also a dangerous game as they're the ones who would be holding the baby if the deal was accepted.
It comes down to this: Can Leave (or the politicians who are now representing Leave, like it or not) provide a Brexit that does what was promised and does it acceptably well? Let the people have their say on it. What would you fear? Or is democracy only a card waved by Leave when it suits them?
Cant remember who!
By the time I looked main story was about Labour donations being up Tory ones being down and Jezza raising more than all other parties put together.
Think they conclude Tories arent right wing enough funnily thats the conclusion in almost every thread on there.
To recover, kneel down in your nearest NHS A&E and pray to the memory of all the IRA martyrs who died freeing Venezuela from the evil grasp of the American oil companies ...
America as had far stricter gun restrictions in the past. In the 70s the NRA change its stance towards more liberal gun laws and by 2000 they are now fanatically pro-gun ownership at the expense of all else.
The various 60s era firearm restrictions where about targetting Black Panther and other African American grpups