I guess we now wait for everyone to throw away their manifesto and stitch up a government among themselves, as usually happens with proportional voting systems that don’t deliver a clear verdict.
The problem is that the M5S could become identified as the party of the South, thus excluding any deal with the Lega that is still considered anti-South by many southern Italians.
The other problem is that all EU leaders wanted a deal between the centre-left and the most reasonable part of the right (PD, Forza Italia, +Europa, Noi con Italia) and they won't get nearly enough seats.
M5S have said they will not be junior partners in any coalition, so it's not clear what government is possible.
Given Lega came ahead of Forza Italia Salvini would have first claim to be PM of the centre right coalition rather than a Forza Italia figure which Berlusconi would have hoped for.
It is not impossible therefore that Berlusconi could back Di Maio instead
The issue is that FI and LN had a formal coalition. They stepped down in the FPTP constituencies in favour of each other. If I were a FI voter who could only vote for LN in my constituency, and knew they were in coalition together... and then saw the man I backed putting the M5S in power, I might be a bit pissed.
Salvini is the most likely next PM certainly as the centre right coalition won most seats but if that does not work out Di Maio as leader of the largest single party will fancy his chances
You can work it out by elimination:
Berlusconi - Barred Tajani - FI beaten by LN within the right block, so unlikely. Gentiloni - PD + FI not enough seats
It also shows the other prisoners elsewhere in Europe that it is indeed a jail and not a holiday resort. The clank of the iron door may concentrate a few minds.
Another reason the EU cannot give favourable terms. The history of this entanglement and the lies successive governments told may bear examining. How about a government committee to look into this?
I don't think Brexit is especially difficult to do. Lots of countries manage just fine outside the EU. The difficulty is doing it in 2 years flat. An 8-10 year detailed plan could get us out with minimal disruption.
Which is why CU Brexit makes sense. In 2025 or so post Brexit and Transition, we could then depart that or rejoin the SM. It would give business time to adjust.
Too sensible for the Brexiterrs though. They want to burn the boats.
It's still very unlikely for there to be a referendum on the deal, despite the majority of those polled consistently wanting it. It may well be in the best interests of the country. It may well be what the country want. But it's not in the best interests of the Conservative Party, because a strong majority of Conservative voters don't want it, and that's what the Conservative Party will bear in mind. And Conservative politicians, members, or strong supporters will find some way of rationalising it away as undemocratic or not in the best interests of the country. Only if or when that number - the proportion of conservative supporters - gets well into the forties or higher - will a referendum on the deal be on the cards.
Most Brexiters concede - see Charles upthread - that Brexit is economically negative. In fact, so does opinion polling.
It’s just that other factors seem to be more important.
Yes, and it's the failure of Remain to shift their argument beyond economics which is behind their failure to shift polling in any meaningful way. Not least of all because their initial promises of 'swift recession' have proved unfounded. They argued on an important - but not decisive factor - and lost. Their arguments also proved to be - initially at least - ill-founded. And yet they keep banging the same drum (other than the 'IRA won't like it' crowd - on a complete hiding to nothing).....
It also shows the other prisoners elsewhere in Europe that it is indeed a jail and not a holiday resort. The clank of the iron door may concentrate a few minds.
Another reason the EU cannot give favourable terms. The history of this entanglement and the lies successive governments told may bear examining. How about a government committee to look into this?
I don't think Brexit is especially difficult to do. Lots of countries manage just fine outside the EU. The difficulty is doing it in 2 years flat. An 8-10 year detailed plan could get us out with minimal disruption.
Yes, the UK government should have taken the time to get its ducks in a row before triggering Article 50. That really was a major blunder.
It's still very unlikely for there to be a referendum on the deal, despite the majority of those polled consistently wanting it. It may well be in the best interests of the country. It may well be what the country want. But it's not in the best interests of the Conservative Party, because a strong majority of Conservative voters don't want it, and that's what the Conservative Party will bear in mind. And Conservative politicians, members, or strong supporters will find some way of rationalising it away as undemocratic or not in the best interests of the country. Only if or when that number - the proportion of conservative supporters - gets well into the forties or higher - will a referendum on the deal be on the cards.
This will be the similar size of majority that doesn't justify our Brexiting, will it?
They’re all still talking to themselves about how wrong we were to vote leave, even though the vote happened 20 months ago.
They’ve still not realised that the time for convincing people of your argument is *before* they have to vote on the issue.
Brexiteers are still telling everyone else to suck it up, losers.
They’ve still not realised that despite winning the war, they are making no effort to win the peace.
Brexit looks worse by the day, not better. So far Brexiteers claim not to care.
In your head.
Meanwhile......
If there was another referendum on EU membership, Brexiteers are three points ahead of Remainers, almost the same as the 2016 result. The message from voters to Mrs May in our poll is: “Get on with it.”
Mr. Enjineeya, indeed. That said, given what's happened since, the fear and suspicion that the political class would seek to keep us in (de facto or de jure) was entirely credible.
It also shows the other prisoners elsewhere in Europe that it is indeed a jail and not a holiday resort. The clank of the iron door may concentrate a few minds.
Another reason the EU cannot give favourable terms. The history of this entanglement and the lies successive governments told may bear examining. How about a government committee to look into this?
I don't think Brexit is especially difficult to do. Lots of countries manage just fine outside the EU. The difficulty is doing it in 2 years flat. An 8-10 year detailed plan could get us out with minimal disruption.
Yes, the UK government should have taken the time to get its ducks in a row before triggering Article 50. That really was a major blunder.
It was a no-win situation. Imagine that they had delayed. And delayed. And delayed.
Trade, no. We can not afford to lose access to European markets, other trade deals will be difficult to agree, and it turns out the EU is the most free-trade bloc on Earth anyway.
Diplomacy, no. Brexit makes us less influential in our home region, and beyond.
Most Brexiters have given up most of these now and are majoring on the democracy thing because it’s more difficult to disprove objectively. Selmayr antics aside, though, it’s thin gruel. The EU works quite well given its constraints (28 nations).
Oh, and immigration of course. But what is strange is how little discussion ther is of that post-Brexit. Why are Brexiters so relaxed about high numbers from non-EU countries?
It's still very unlikely for there to be a referendum on the deal, despite the majority of those polled consistently wanting it. It may well be in the best interests of the country. It may well be what the country want. But it's not in the best interests of the Conservative Party, because a strong majority of Conservative voters don't want it, and that's what the Conservative Party will bear in mind. And Conservative politicians, members, or strong supporters will find some way of rationalising it away as undemocratic or not in the best interests of the country. Only if or when that number - the proportion of conservative supporters - gets well into the forties or higher - will a referendum on the deal be on the cards.
All the reasons why we should not have had the first referendum, apply in spades, and then some others on top. It would turn into a verdict on Corbyn vs May, the implications of refusing the deal would be unknowable, and what would the question be anyway? If just accept/reject, the reject side would be a coalition of diamond hard brexiters and let's revoke the Art 50 euers. Is that a sane arrangement?
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
So you don’t think Remain can win without fixing the vote? like trying to ram through votes for children?
Very telling, Mr Smithson, very telling.
And rather saddening
You should be ashamed of yourself
they didn't realise the enormity of it.
Politicians say what they so.
Not a very charitable view of your fellow Leavers, Charles; too stupid to do the appropriate due diligence (whether because they couldn’t or wouldn’t) to check whether the politicians were lying to them or not.
You are misinterpreting. In my views leavers were motivated by philosophy ; Remainers by base greed. We are clearly higher up the hierarchy of needs
You quite clearly were saying that Leavers should have done their homework and didn’t.
Your argument is simply “Leave voters are stupid”.
My view is that voters take politicians’ words as one input but cast their vote based on a range of inputs, many of which are intuitive.
You can’t say “X lied. Therefore the result is invalid”. Because you can’t prove that X impacted the outcome
Stop wriggling. You said it was up to Voters to discern whether politicians were lying via due diligence which Leave voters had not done. It wasn’t me who said they were stupid, it was you.
I didn’t say Leavers hadn’t done their diligence, I said it was their responsibility to do it rather than just taking politicians at face value.
You have a bad habit of embellishing people’s quotes.
a) Leave voters did their due diligence, and believed the Leave campaign b) Leave voters did their due diligence, didn't believe the Leave campaign but voted to Leave c) Leave voters didn't do their due diligence.
Same applies to Remain voters too.
And as we're decades away from knowing whether 'Brexit was a good idea' or not, I suspect we'll never know.
Meanwhile the people who lost the argument on economics continue to press their case on....economics.....
Most Brexiters concede - see Charles upthread - that Brexit is economically negative. In fact, so does opinion polling.
It’s just that other factors seem to be more important.
I didn’t “concede” that - I said the risks were on the downside and that I thought I would personally be worse off (in practice I’m not as London house prices haven’t fallen as much as I thought and the fx rate offfset some)
So you don’t think Remain can win without fixing the vote? like trying to ram through votes for children?
Very telling, Mr Smithson, very telling.
And rather saddening
You should be ashamed of yourself
they didn't realise the enormity of it.
Politicians say what they so.
Not a very charitable view of your fellow Leavers, Charles; too stupid to do the appropriate due diligence (whether because they couldn’t or wouldn’t) to check whether the politicians were lying to them or not.
Ys
t.
Yied. Therefore the result is invalid”. Because you can’t prove that X impacted the outcome
Stop wriggling. You said it was up to Voters to discern whether politicians were lying via due diligence which Leave voters had not done. It wasn’t me who said they were stupid, it was you.
I didn’t say Leavers hadn’t done their diligence, I said it was their responsibility to do it rather than just taking politicians at face value.
You have a bad habit of embellishing people’s quotes.
The only bad habit it seems I have made this morning is giving you some credit for there being some thought process behind what you wrote.
"Politicians say what they say. It’s incumbent on voters to do their own diligence before voting."
So that leaves the following options, or why on earth would you have brought it up:
a) Leave voters did their due diligence, and believed the Leave campaign b) Leave voters did their due diligence, didn't believe the Leave campaign but voted to Leave c) Leave voters didn't do their due diligence.
Leaving aside your inviolate loyalty to the US investment banking sector British people, it is not a very nice view to take of your fellow travellers.
Or (d) All politicians lie. Voters make their decisions based on a range of inputs.
First, all politicians don't lie. That is a facile comment on a par with @DavidL berating the European parliament while admitting that he didn't know the identity of, and nor had he engaged with his MEP.
Second, of course voters make decisions on a range of inputs. I was just saddened that you had such a low view of your fellow Leavers.
All politicians deceive, mislead, partially inform, spin. At one level those are synonyms for lying.
I didn’t say anything about Leavers in my post. It was a general point.
The Pasokification of European social democracy-apart from the UK.
Fr: PS 7% De: SPD 20.5% Nl: PvDA 6% Gr: PASOK 6% Es: PSOE 22.6% It: PD: 19% At: SPÖ: 26.9% Se: S 31% Cz: ČSSD 7.3% Dk: S 26.3% Pt: PS 32.3% Fi: SDP 16.5% No: AP 27.4% Ch: 18.8% Is: S 12.1%
UK: LAB 40%
In what universe is Corbyn a social democrat???
Perhaps Labour really would have been routed with a Starmer figure in charge. Miliband and Brown post crisis both hovered around the 30% mark.
I think if Labour had run under a Chuka platform of slash welfare by more than the Tories to look tough whilst refighting the referendum they would have definitely done worse.
It's still very unlikely for there to be a referendum on the deal, despite the majority of those polled consistently wanting it. It may well be in the best interests of the country. It may well be what the country want. But it's not in the best interests of the Conservative Party, because a strong majority of Conservative voters don't want it, and that's what the Conservative Party will bear in mind. And Conservative politicians, members, or strong supporters will find some way of rationalising it away as undemocratic or not in the best interests of the country. Only if or when that number - the proportion of conservative supporters - gets well into the forties or higher - will a referendum on the deal be on the cards.
This will be the similar size of majority that doesn't justify our Brexiting, will it?
All politicians deceive, mislead, partially inform, spin. At one level those are synonyms for lying.
I didn’t say anything about Leavers in my post. It was a general point.
As mentioned, in my opinion that is a calumny on MPs the vast majority of whom do none of those things.
As for your post, here's the context:
PB poster: Leave won by telling a whole lot of lies... There are many people I know who voted leave who now complain they didn't realise the enormity of it. Chas: Politicians say what they say. It’s incumbent on voters to do their own diligence before voting. (Remain told plenty of lies as well.)
I think the "Remain told plenty of lies as well" slightly gives it away.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
Both sides were liars or ill-informed and ran miserable campaigns.
If there were to be a second referendum, I would like to hope - but very much doubt - that matters would be different.
If there were to be one thing I would very much want (were such a referendum to happen) it would be for the EU itself to spell out exactly what Remain and Leave would mean. I simply don’t trust pro-Remain or pro-Leave UK politicians to tell the truth on this.
The Pasokification of European social democracy-apart from the UK.
Fr: PS 7% De: SPD 20.5% Nl: PvDA 6% Gr: PASOK 6% Es: PSOE 22.6% It: PD: 19% At: SPÖ: 26.9% Se: S 31% Cz: ČSSD 7.3% Dk: S 26.3% Pt: PS 32.3% Fi: SDP 16.5% No: AP 27.4% Ch: 18.8% Is: S 12.1%
UK: LAB 40%
Didn't John Major claim that if Corbyn wasn't leader Labour would be 15% ahead ?
If so, those numbers show how stuck in the past he is (if we didn't already know know that).
Indeed. I've come to the conclusion that Corbyn is the 'best' leader for labour at the moment for the same reason he won the leadership election.
1. He's better than the alternative(s) at the moment 2. He's different 3. He beleives in what he says.
Doesn't mean he would be a good PM, far from it, but the electorate are crying out for new ideas and change in the world. Sometimes they will lean to the right (Brexit, Trump), etc, and sometimes to the left.
Either way, the middle/centre is being hollowed out.
All politicians deceive, mislead, partially inform, spin. At one level those are synonyms for lying.
I didn’t say anything about Leavers in my post. It was a general point.
As mentioned, in my opinion that is a calumny on MPs the vast majority of whom do none of those things.
As for your post, here's the context:
PB poster: Leave won by telling a whole lot of lies... There are many people I know who voted leave who now complain they didn't realise the enormity of it. Chas: Politicians say what they say. It’s incumbent on voters to do their own diligence before voting. (Remain told plenty of lies as well.)
I think the "Remain told plenty of lies as well" slightly gives it away.
It does. It makes absolutely clear that it’s a general comment on politicians and voters. Not just on one side as you are so keen to make it.
The Pasokification of European social democracy-apart from the UK.
Fr: PS 7% De: SPD 20.5% Nl: PvDA 6% Gr: PASOK 6% Es: PSOE 22.6% It: PD: 19% At: SPÖ: 26.9% Se: S 31% Cz: ČSSD 7.3% Dk: S 26.3% Pt: PS 32.3% Fi: SDP 16.5% No: AP 27.4% Ch: 18.8% Is: S 12.1%
UK: LAB 40%
Didn't John Major claim that if Corbyn wasn't leader Labour would be 15% ahead ?
If so, those numbers show how stuck in the past he is (if we didn't already know know that).
Indeed. I've come to the conclusion that Corbyn is the 'best' leader for labour at the moment for the same reason he won the leadership election.
1. He's better than the alternative(s) at the moment 2. He's different 3. He beleives in what he says.
Doesn't mean he would be a good PM, far from it, but the electorate are crying out for new ideas and change in the world. Sometimes they will lean to the right (Brexit, Trump), etc, and sometimes to the left.
Either way, the middle/centre is being hollowed out.
+1. In retrospect, it is astonishing to recollect how little there was to distinguish Cameron from Miliband. There was the one who pointed at fish, and the bacon sandwich one. The latter once said something about limiting gas bills. And that was about it. Different age.
The Pasokification of European social democracy-apart from the UK.
Fr: PS 7% De: SPD 20.5% Nl: PvDA 6% Gr: PASOK 6% Es: PSOE 22.6% It: PD: 19% At: SPÖ: 26.9% Se: S 31% Cz: ČSSD 7.3% Dk: S 26.3% Pt: PS 32.3% Fi: SDP 16.5% No: AP 27.4% Ch: 18.8% Is: S 12.1%
UK: LAB 40%
Didn't John Major claim that if Corbyn wasn't leader Labour would be 15% ahead ?
If so, those numbers show how stuck in the past he is (if we didn't already know that).
Indeed. I've come to the conclusion that Corbyn is the 'best' leader for labour at the moment for the same reason he won the leadership election.
1. He's better than the alternative(s) at the moment 2. He's different 3. He beleives in what he says.
Doesn't mean he would be a good PM, far from it, but the electorate are crying out for new ideas and change in the world. Sometimes they will lean to the right (Brexit, Trump), etc, and sometimes to the left.
Either way, the middle/centre is being hollowed out.
"Provisional results show Five Star garnering 31.6% of the vote, while the League received 18.2% of the vote and Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia 13.8%. Matteo Renzi's ruling Democratic Party (DP) only got 19.1% of the vote."
Whilst the League and Forza Italia fought the election in an alliance to have a common candidate in constituencies, with 2/3 of seats won under proportional representation, they don't have a majority in parliament.
Five Star might form an alliance with the League or Forza Italia.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
Technical note, Richard - you can't lie about something that hasn't happened yet.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
Both sides were liars or ill-informed and ran miserable campaigns.
If there were to be a second referendum, I would like to hope - but very much doubt - that matters would be different.
If there were to be one thing I would very much want (were such a referendum to happen) it would be for the EU itself to spell out exactly what Remain and Leave would mean. I simply don’t trust pro-Remain or pro-Leave UK politicians to tell the truth on this.
US trade wars are worrying and we can expect no favours from the US. Staying close to the EU might be sensible in such circumstances.
No-one would believe a word the EU said either. I think we need to experience Brexit before we can expect any shift in opinion about it one way or another. I say that from the immensely privileged position of not really being that affected either way.
Mr. Pulpstar, quite a while if they have a drought and need us to send water
On a slightly serious note, I remember reading that time moves at different rates in different parts of the universe. I wonder if that could also make galactic exploration a bit tricky.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
Technical note, Richard - you can't lie about something that hasn't happened yet.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
Technical note, Richard - you can't lie about something that hasn't happened yet.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
But Remain lost. It's the lies and the spectacular ignorance of the Leave leadership that actually matter now.
It does feel like it, but we are learning through this Brexit process.
We know the economy didn’t collapse, as Treasury predicted, but only slowed. Forecasts are now for a slow relative decline.
We know too there is no 350 for the NHS, and that we will need to continue contributing many millions indefinitely.
We know that the global trade situationing is worsening, and that any free trade agreements outside the EU are likely to be highly challenging, this casts doubt on one of the more intellectually respectable Brexit arguments.
We also know that Brexit is not “easy”, that BMW and prosecco makers are not coming to our rescue, and that we are not going to be able to stitch up a deal with Germany. We know too that Brexit is going to consume all our administrative energy until 2019 and probably beyond.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
But Remain lost. It's the lies and the spectacular ignorance of the Leave leadership that actually matter now.
So Remain's lies can be whitewashed, can they? Because they were such shit lies they lost the vote? Interesting.
Well at least you acknowledge the lies. You might want to have a word with some of the Remainers posting here about that. They seem to think their campaign was whiter than white.
Mr. Pulpstar, quite a while if they have a drought and need us to send water
On a slightly serious note, I remember reading that time moves at different rates in different parts of the universe. I wonder if that could also make galactic exploration a bit tricky.
Nothing humanity has yet created will ever leave the galaxy (Aside from anything created within the EM spectrum)
Escape velocities:
Earth 11.2 km/s Solar system from earth 42.1 km/s Galactic escape velocity from the solar system: 317 km/s (550 proper, the solar system gives the first 220 km/s or so)
Nothing has come remotely close to that speed - though gravity assists using certain stars might be able to do it (Like extra-solar probes do with Jupiter to escape the solar system).
One weird thing is that launching a probe into the sun is very very hard to do (It needs to go very very fast), much more difficult (More velocity needed) than escaping the solar system entirely !
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
Technical note, Richard - you can't lie about something that hasn't happened yet.
You mean like how Brexit is going to turn out?
Yep just like that.
Of course you can have a bunch of experts with their silly forecasts, but no one pays heed to those, nor should they (needn't tell you of all people how ridiculous it is to think that you can model likely outcomes based upon a set of assumptions, eh?).
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
If there was another referendum on EU membership, Brexiteers are three points ahead of Remainers, almost the same as the 2016 result. The message from voters to Mrs May in our poll is: “Get on with it.”
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
£350m/wk ?
Except....
Hammond is going to spend the extra cash he has - and stand up in his Statement and say
"By 2022, this Govt. will have increased spending on the NHS by £350m a week from that which we inherited from Labour". Or maybe if he gets his arm bent up his back, "Since 2015...."
Boris and The Moggster back in lock-step with May and Hammond. Everyone can claim how they did their bit in the Great Brexit War. Then on with governing.
If there was another referendum on EU membership, Brexiteers are three points ahead of Remainers, almost the same as the 2016 result. The message from voters to Mrs May in our poll is: “Get on with it.”
Shout going out to the 1 in 5 who think Britain hasn't had enough elections recently.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
But Remain lost. It's the lies and the spectacular ignorance of the Leave leadership that actually matter now.
So Remain's lies can be whitewashed, can they? Because they were such shit lies they lost the vote? Interesting.
Well at least you acknowledge the lies. You might want to have a word with some of the Remainers posting here about that. They seem to think their campaign was whiter than white.
Yep - the referendum campaign was almost entirely characterised by the wealthy, privileged right wingers who fronted the Leave and Remain campaigns telling lies to the electorate.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
But Remain lost. It's the lies and the spectacular ignorance of the Leave leadership that actually matter now.
So Remain's lies can be whitewashed, can they? Because they were such shit lies they lost the vote? Interesting.
Well at least you acknowledge the lies. You might want to have a word with some of the Remainers posting here about that. They seem to think their campaign was whiter than white.
Yep - the referendum campaign was almost entirely characterised by the wealthy, privileged right wingers who fronted the Leave and Remain campaigns telling lies to the electorate.
And where does the quite effective Labour Leave campaign sit within that assessment?
If there was another referendum on EU membership, Brexiteers are three points ahead of Remainers, almost the same as the 2016 result. The message from voters to Mrs May in our poll is: “Get on with it.”
Shout going out to the 1 in 5 who think Britain hasn't had enough elections recently.
The Mirror's spin was heroic:
Nearly one in five voters want Theresa May to call another General Election.
I'm with the more than four out of five who don't.....
If there was another referendum on EU membership, Brexiteers are three points ahead of Remainers, almost the same as the 2016 result. The message from voters to Mrs May in our poll is: “Get on with it.”
Ah but given the polls generally over-stated Remain (remember Remain were 10% ahead on 23rd June with Populas) the lead for Leave could actually be greater now than it was in 2016...
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
But Remain lost. It's the lies and the spectacular ignorance of the Leave leadership that actually matter now.
So Remain's lies can be whitewashed, can they? Because they were such shit lies they lost the vote? Interesting.
Well at least you acknowledge the lies. You might want to have a word with some of the Remainers posting here about that. They seem to think their campaign was whiter than white.
Yep - the referendum campaign was almost entirely characterised by the wealthy, privileged right wingers who fronted the Leave and Remain campaigns telling lies to the electorate.
oh yes of course left wing remainers never lied, they are such a beacon of light!
I've now read TM's speech in full. I largely agree with those who say it's about creating as close as possible a relationship with the EU that's consistent with being outside the SM and CU. But it's couched in language of being a deep, ambitious free-trade agreement, and a close security partnership
The key things for me are that it's arguing for a balance of rights and obligations, and explaining why that isn't "cherrypicking".
For example: a deal with only the rights of Canada, but the obligations of Norway would be lopsided. It's a warning to the EU not to try and push a punishment deal.
She picks out, for example, that the EU wants more access to fisheries, as we do for services, so she clearly sees a negotiation there. But, it must be balanced. And she is clear she will domestically reform both CAP and CFP regardless.
She agrees no dumping - state aid and competition - but with an impartial court to rule, not just the ECJ, so that should reassure the EU, whilst making it sellable to eurosceptics.
On goods, it's clear she's looking at full regulatory equivalence. Associate membership for the UK of some EU agencies; EMA, Aviation, and Chemicals. ECJ will have an influence here, but only to take effect via UK courts. Also, on customs, a very close partnership. No entry/exit declarations, with use of tech, and a commitment not to delay pan-European supply chains.
Free movement will end, but she acknowledges work and study will continue. I see a hint here at a young persons study/work scheme. She also clocks that labour mobility will be needed for professionals. So I could see a generous visa programme, or free-ish movement for v. highly skilled workers here. She will discuss with the EU.
Financial services will need reciprocal agreement on regulation - there will be no passporting, but also no automatic importing of EU financial rules either. The UK taxpayer bears the risk so it must have some freedom here, but it will agree its approaches with the EU. We will basically continue as part of single market for energy and transport.
She also wants very close agreements on science, innovation, broadcasting and legal services, education and culture. She is very clear she wants full regulatory independence in digital. The EU will be worried by this, and probably want to manage our divergence; I expect some kind of trade-off.
In the longer term, 10-20 years perhaps, I might expect a SM-lite to develop for the UK (in exchange for budget contributions) on votes on some of these matters once the EU has stabilised, but not now.
But, this is more or less consistent with where I thought we'd end up: from half-in/half-out, to half-out/half-in, but set on a different long-term course that brings ever-closer union to an end.
If there was another referendum on EU membership, Brexiteers are three points ahead of Remainers, almost the same as the 2016 result. The message from voters to Mrs May in our poll is: “Get on with it.”
Ah but given the polls generally over-stated Remain (remember Remain were 10% ahead on 23rd June with Popular) the lead for Leave could actually be greater now than it was in 2016...
Have the polling firms made any methodology adjustments to correct for this?
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
£350m/wk ?
Except....
Hammond is going to spend the extra cash he has - and stand up in his Statement and say
"By 2022, this Govt. will have increased spending on the NHS by £350m a week from that which we inherited from Labour". Or maybe if he gets his arm bent up his back, "Since 2015...."
Boris and The Moggster back in lock-step with May and Hammond. Everyone can claim how they did their bit in the Great Brexit War. Then on with governing.
£350m a week is £18bn a year, or 15% of the £120bn NHS budget. Over the six years between the referendum and the next scheduled election, that’s less than 1% annual real terms increase, should be very easy to do.
Hammond just needs to make a massive fanfare about it in his statement next week, that the Leave campaign said there would be £350m a for the NHS and this government will deliver £350m a week for the NHS! (Cue massive applause from the benches behind him).
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
£350m/wk ?
Except....
Hammond is going to spend the extra cash he has - and stand up in his Statement and say
"By 2022, this Govt. will have increased spending on the NHS by £350m a week from that which we inherited from Labour". Or maybe if he gets his arm bent up his back, "Since 2015...."
Boris and The Moggster back in lock-step with May and Hammond. Everyone can claim how they did their bit in the Great Brexit War. Then on with governing.
It's too easy a target not to miss, what's another 18 billion (3% total govt spending) between friends...in any case health spending is forecast to grow at 5 billion a year.....but then again, with old tin ear...
If there was another referendum on EU membership, Brexiteers are three points ahead of Remainers, almost the same as the 2016 result. The message from voters to Mrs May in our poll is: “Get on with it.”
In my experience in the "real world" Brexit is barely a topic of conversation, even if it is the only thing the media and politicians talk about now. It does not suprise me that people want the goverment to "get on with it", as I've said myself recently.
BBC sound like they could be in hot water under IR35 rules, for forcing full time presenting staff to work as contractors for a decade. Lots of unhappy people, who now have HMRC on their backs personally for the tax and NI they believe is owed. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/03/stars-turn-bbc-tax-stitch/
Hammond is going to spend the extra cash he has - and stand up in his Statement and say
"By 2022, this Govt. will have increased spending on the NHS by £350m a week from that which we inherited from Labour". Or maybe if he gets his arm bent up his back, "Since 2015...."
Except he will not say because the Brexiteers dare not let him say that. The NHS gets the EU £350 million per week without the need to leave the EU?
It would undermine one of the key LEAVE dogwhistles and prove what a load of twaddle the whole thing is
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
Well certainly not Cameron since it will not happen - unfortunately of course since I want a united Ireland.
So you’re predicting the world’s first customs border with no infrastructure and no checks at all? Now that’s magic.
I think the whole "hard border" is being blown up out of all proportion by the remain side.
a) Noone in a personal vehicle is going to be checked. b) Farmers and other small traders will generally be below a business threshold. Those that aren't, and need to make frequent crossings will be able to register their vehicles in a UK/Eire customs exclusion database. c) I doubt severely there'll be any physical customs posts on the border. At the most, random checks on lorries outwith the schemes could be performed. Though at present the UK and Ireland have differing duty rates for alcohol, so the same infrastructure used for enforcement of that particular issue could be used to check any customs compliance.
A transition period for the implementation of the electronic systems will be needed but it is in practice going to just about be the world's softest customs border.
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
We were going to have all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, Leave told us. On Friday, Theresa May confirmed that would not be the case. The leaders of the Leave campaign were either barefaced liars or spectacularly ill-informed. You can decide which it is. But neither is a great look.
In exactly the same way that we were going to be able to keep a special status and nothing at all would change with the EU in spite of the fact everyone knew the direction of travel was for ever closer political union.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
But Remain lost. It's the lies and the spectacular ignorance of the Leave leadership that actually matter now.
So Remain's lies can be whitewashed, can they? Because they were such shit lies they lost the vote? Interesting.
Well at least you acknowledge the lies. You might want to have a word with some of the Remainers posting here about that. They seem to think their campaign was whiter than white.
Yep - the referendum campaign was almost entirely characterised by the wealthy, privileged right wingers who fronted the Leave and Remain campaigns telling lies to the electorate.
Since when were Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg right wingers?
Comments
Berlusconi - Barred
Tajani - FI beaten by LN within the right block, so unlikely.
Gentiloni - PD + FI not enough seats
Which leaves Salvini and Di Maio.
They’ve still not realised that despite winning the war, they are making no effort to win the peace.
Brexit looks worse by the day, not better. So far Brexiteers claim not to care.
Too sensible for the Brexiterrs though. They want to burn the boats.
It may well be in the best interests of the country. It may well be what the country want. But it's not in the best interests of the Conservative Party, because a strong majority of Conservative voters don't want it, and that's what the Conservative Party will bear in mind. And Conservative politicians, members, or strong supporters will find some way of rationalising it away as undemocratic or not in the best interests of the country.
Only if or when that number - the proportion of conservative supporters - gets well into the forties or higher - will a referendum on the deal be on the cards.
Meanwhile......
If there was another referendum on EU membership, Brexiteers are three points ahead of Remainers, almost the same as the 2016 result.
The message from voters to Mrs May in our poll is: “Get on with it.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/first-major-poll-theresa-mays-12120700
Think of JRM's reaction.
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/970224564197314560
Economics, no. Brexit makes us poorer.
Trade, no. We can not afford to lose access to European markets, other trade deals will be difficult to agree, and it turns out the EU is the most free-trade bloc on Earth anyway.
Diplomacy, no. Brexit makes us less influential in our home region, and beyond.
Most Brexiters have given up most of these now and are majoring on the democracy thing because it’s more difficult to disprove objectively. Selmayr antics aside, though, it’s thin gruel. The EU works quite well given its constraints (28 nations).
Oh, and immigration of course.
But what is strange is how little discussion ther is of that post-Brexit. Why are Brexiters so relaxed about high numbers from non-EU countries?
Fr: PS 7%
De: SPD 20.5%
Nl: PvDA 6%
Gr: PASOK 6%
Es: PSOE 22.6%
It: PD: 19%
At: SPÖ: 26.9%
Se: S 31%
Cz: ČSSD 7.3%
Dk: S 26.3%
Pt: PS 32.3%
Fi: SDP 16.5%
No: AP 27.4%
Ch: 18.8%
Is: S 12.1%
UK: LAB 40%
Why would anyone believe a word the Remain politicians say?. They have a track record of lying,. or should we say being economical with the truth? Shouting louder doesn't make it more convincing.
I work on the assumption that politicians routinely. What I do dislike is when they tell preposterous lies which insult my intelligence. By comparison the £350 million per week which could be available to the NHS is the truth, but not the whole truth. A minor improvement on the wholesale deceit for years.
http://earthsky.org/space/alpha-centauri-travel-time
The UK attitude to the EU: "Down with this sort of thing!"
Corbyn is running a hard left/communist party - nothing social or democratic about it.
Don’t trust the UK
Since the EU referendum, I am often asked if other parties should trade with, visit and study in the UK. My answer? Stay away
by AC Grayling
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/dont-trust-the-uk
Yes, much better to trade with, visit and study in countries that ignore democratic outcomes.....
If so, those numbers show how stuck in the past he is (if we didn't already know know that).
I didn’t say anything about Leavers in my post. It was a general point.
The time aspect of space stuff is very interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/jan/26/guardian-icm-brexit-poll-full-results
... but it's 35/65 against for Conservative voters.
I'm not sure whether he was attempting to deceive, mislead, partially inform, spin or was merely talking bollox about things he knew little about.
As for your post, here's the context:
PB poster: Leave won by telling a whole lot of lies... There are many people I know who voted leave who now complain they didn't realise the enormity of it.
Chas: Politicians say what they say. It’s incumbent on voters to do their own diligence before voting. (Remain told plenty of lies as well.)
I think the "Remain told plenty of lies as well" slightly gives it away.
If there were to be a second referendum, I would like to hope - but very much doubt - that matters would be different.
If there were to be one thing I would very much want (were such a referendum to happen) it would be for the EU itself to spell out exactly what Remain and Leave would mean. I simply don’t trust pro-Remain or pro-Leave UK politicians to tell the truth on this.
But as all this is pie in the sky I merely post this re the US - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/trump-ally-sold-shares-days-before-tariffs-r33gbm05q.
US trade wars are worrying and we can expect no favours from the US. Staying close to the EU might be sensible in such circumstances.
1. He's better than the alternative(s) at the moment
2. He's different
3. He beleives in what he says.
Doesn't mean he would be a good PM, far from it, but the electorate are crying out for new ideas and change in the world. Sometimes they will lean to the right (Brexit, Trump), etc, and sometimes to the left.
Either way, the middle/centre is being hollowed out.
https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-london-is-the-most-unequal-place-in-the-uk-11275891
Politicians said a bunch of stuff.
People voted for Brexit.
That’s all we *know*
Plus it must be catching. Charles: "London house prices haven’t fallen as much as I thought"
And I think I acknowledged the UK house price situation soon afterwards.
Don't remember saying that no one predicted a recession, but I'm sure you will find my quote to show otherwise.
The information would only take 4 years to get back, so not massively out of date. Getting the probes there is the err hard part...
Despite Brexit...We haven't left yet.....
BBC reports:
"Provisional results show Five Star garnering 31.6% of the vote, while the League received 18.2% of the vote and Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia 13.8%. Matteo Renzi's ruling Democratic Party (DP) only got 19.1% of the vote."
Whilst the League and Forza Italia fought the election in an alliance to have a common candidate in constituencies, with 2/3 of seats won under proportional representation, they don't have a majority in parliament.
Five Star might form an alliance with the League or Forza Italia.
There is no question of the Remain campaign being ill informed. They were just bare faced liars. A habit they continue to this day.
I thought you lived somewhat further out in a rather more downmarket district - so prices near you might be rather more bouyant.
On a slightly serious note, I remember reading that time moves at different rates in different parts of the universe. I wonder if that could also make galactic exploration a bit tricky.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/743054573716295681
https://twitter.com/chrishanretty/status/970603234460078081
We know the economy didn’t collapse, as Treasury predicted, but only slowed. Forecasts are now for a slow relative decline.
We know too there is no 350 for the NHS, and that we will need to continue contributing many millions indefinitely.
We know that the global trade situationing is worsening, and that any free trade agreements outside the EU are likely to be highly challenging, this casts doubt on one of the more intellectually respectable Brexit arguments.
We also know that Brexit is not “easy”, that BMW and prosecco makers are not coming to our rescue, and that we are not going to be able to stitch up a deal with Germany. We know too that Brexit is going to consume all our administrative energy until 2019 and probably beyond.
Well at least you acknowledge the lies. You might want to have a word with some of the Remainers posting here about that. They seem to think their campaign was whiter than white.
Escape velocities:
Earth 11.2 km/s
Solar system from earth 42.1 km/s
Galactic escape velocity from the solar system: 317 km/s (550 proper, the solar system gives the first 220 km/s or so)
Nothing has come remotely close to that speed - though gravity assists using certain stars might be able to do it (Like extra-solar probes do with Jupiter to escape the solar system).
One weird thing is that launching a probe into the sun is very very hard to do (It needs to go very very fast), much more difficult (More velocity needed) than escaping the solar system entirely !
Thankfully we're leaving.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-03-02/-brexit-is-stupid-says-peterson-institute-s-posen-video
Of course you can have a bunch of experts with their silly forecasts, but no one pays heed to those, nor should they (needn't tell you of all people how ridiculous it is to think that you can model likely outcomes based upon a set of assumptions, eh?).
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/970429944386981889
The message from voters to Mrs May in our poll is: “Get on with it.”
Hammond is going to spend the extra cash he has - and stand up in his Statement and say
"By 2022, this Govt. will have increased spending on the NHS by £350m a week from that which we inherited from Labour". Or maybe if he gets his arm bent up his back, "Since 2015...."
Boris and The Moggster back in lock-step with May and Hammond. Everyone can claim how they did their bit in the Great Brexit War. Then on with governing.
Although I agree he has a good point 'until the UK writes something, you've got a problem'.
Nearly one in five voters want Theresa May to call another General Election.
I'm with the more than four out of five who don't.....
The key things for me are that it's arguing for a balance of rights and obligations, and explaining why that isn't "cherrypicking".
For example: a deal with only the rights of Canada, but the obligations of Norway would be lopsided. It's a warning to the EU not to try and push a punishment deal.
She picks out, for example, that the EU wants more access to fisheries, as we do for services, so she clearly sees a negotiation there. But, it must be balanced. And she is clear she will domestically reform both CAP and CFP regardless.
She agrees no dumping - state aid and competition - but with an impartial court to rule, not just the ECJ, so that should reassure the EU, whilst making it sellable to eurosceptics.
On goods, it's clear she's looking at full regulatory equivalence. Associate membership for the UK of some EU agencies; EMA, Aviation, and Chemicals. ECJ will have an influence here, but only to take effect via UK courts. Also, on customs, a very close partnership. No entry/exit declarations, with use of tech, and a commitment not to delay pan-European supply chains.
Free movement will end, but she acknowledges work and study will continue. I see a hint here at a young persons study/work scheme. She also clocks that labour mobility will be needed for professionals. So I could see a generous visa programme, or free-ish movement for v. highly skilled workers here. She will discuss with the EU.
Financial services will need reciprocal agreement on regulation - there will be no passporting, but also no automatic importing of EU financial rules either. The UK taxpayer bears the risk so it must have some freedom here, but it will agree its approaches with the EU. We will basically continue as part of single market for energy and transport.
She also wants very close agreements on science, innovation, broadcasting and legal services, education and culture. She is very clear she wants full regulatory independence in digital. The EU will be worried by this, and probably want to manage our divergence; I expect some kind of trade-off.
In the longer term, 10-20 years perhaps, I might expect a SM-lite to develop for the UK (in exchange for budget contributions) on votes on some of these matters once the EU has stabilised, but not now.
But, this is more or less consistent with where I thought we'd end up: from half-in/half-out, to half-out/half-in, but set on a different long-term course that brings ever-closer union to an end.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 46% (n/c)
No 54% (n/c)
A minority of the population that has 'shrunk' from 45% to 46%? An interesting notion.
Hammond just needs to make a massive fanfare about it in his statement next week, that the Leave campaign said there would be £350m a for the NHS and this government will deliver £350m a week for the NHS! (Cue massive applause from the benches behind him).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/03/stars-turn-bbc-tax-stitch/
It would undermine one of the key LEAVE dogwhistles and prove what a load of twaddle the whole thing is
a) Noone in a personal vehicle is going to be checked.
b) Farmers and other small traders will generally be below a business threshold. Those that aren't, and need to make frequent crossings will be able to register their vehicles in a UK/Eire customs exclusion database.
c) I doubt severely there'll be any physical customs posts on the border. At the most, random checks on lorries outwith the schemes could be performed. Though at present the UK and Ireland have differing duty rates for alcohol, so the same infrastructure used for enforcement of that particular issue could be used to check any customs compliance.
A transition period for the implementation of the electronic systems will be needed but it is in practice going to just about be the world's softest customs border.