FFS. Why do people keep taking the words 'border' and 'freedom of movement' literally instead of realising that these are shorthand for deciding who can live and work in the UK.
I think I’ve said a hundred times that people are deliberately confusing freedom of movement, which has a very specific meaning in the EU, with anything that happens at the border between two countries.
FoM is the entitlement of EU citizens to an NI number, welfare and healthcare, nothing whatsoever to do with visas or travel across borders.
So Theresa May is insisting that keeping one border totally open is consistent with keeping all borders closed, we're hosting a conference to encourage people to join the EU, and the Once and Future Dork has decided to draw his banana and reenter the fray, some time after it would have made a difference and far too late. You no longer need me to supply parody as real life seems to be doing it for me. I shall now bid you adieu and go catch my train. Laters, alligators.
This would be a border which has been open for 96 years and didn't even exist before that.
No one has any issue with freedom of movement with Ireland. And the common travel area means we have common immigration policies in terms of which nations have visa free travel and which don't.
We aren't going to make Greeks or Slovakians apply for tourist visas to come to the UK - whether direct or via Dublin - any more than we make Nicaraguan or Vanuatu citizens do so now.
The difference is they won't have residency, working and welfare and full NHS usage rights in the UK but will in the Republic.
It's not difficult you know - Ireland is already an independent nation with its own welfare system, health service, tax system and excise system.
So Theresa May is insisting that keeping one border totally open is consistent with keeping all borders closed, we're hosting a conference to encourage people to join the EU, and the Once and Future Dork has decided to draw his banana and reenter the fray, some time after it would have made a difference and far too late. You no longer need me to supply parody as real life seems to be doing it for me. I shall now bid you adieu and go catch my train. Laters, alligators.
This would be a border which has been open for 96 years and didn't even exist before that.
Lord Tebbit and his sodomite comment is as bad as Ken Livingstone and his Zionist remarks. Neither should remain in a main stream party. I think the Lib Dems had a problem with a Baroness over comments on Jewish people and got rid of her.
On a broader point I once knew a Conservative who has been a candidate for local elections (2008 & 2018) and has aspirations for parliament who detailed how if he had power he would expunge Muslims through extermination camps located in rural parts of Britain in a similar fashion to the Nazi's. I thought he was an arsehole at the time but surely someone like that needs to have any political career snuffed out. What is the best way to get the media to catch him out? A sting perhaps?
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
Customs may well be about goods, but May is talking about people. She states that HMG will decide on the number of people coming into the UK, then states that there will be no hard NI/IRE border. Can't do both.
Of course you can do both. Having an open border is no bigger problem for immigration than people coming here on holidays.
People who come here on holidays go thru a physical border where their passports are checked. The checks may by cursory but they, the passports, and the physical controls exist as physical objects. Such a border is physically capable of preventing a person entering.
The open border proposed for NI/IRE has no physical constraints. Such a border is not physically capable of preventing a person entering.
The former constitutes "control". The latter does not.
If you read “coming in” as “immigrating” then it all adds up
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
So Theresa May is insisting that keeping one border totally open is consistent with keeping all borders closed, we're hosting a conference to encourage people to join the EU, and the Once and Future Dork has decided to draw his banana and reenter the fray, some time after it would have made a difference and far too late. You no longer need me to supply parody as real life seems to be doing it for me. I shall now bid you adieu and go catch my train. Laters, alligators.
This would be a border which has been open for 96 years and didn't even exist before that.
What was this all about then?
Customs controls not immigration controls. No one ever asked to see our passports when we went on the ferry to Ireland and back - they did want to check the boot for security and customs purposes. But then a police officer can stop you in the UK to do that!
So Theresa May is insisting that keeping one border totally open is consistent with keeping all borders closed, we're hosting a conference to encourage people to join the EU, and the Once and Future Dork has decided to draw his banana and reenter the fray, some time after it would have made a difference and far too late. You no longer need me to supply parody as real life seems to be doing it for me. I shall now bid you adieu and go catch my train. Laters, alligators.
This would be a border which has been open for 96 years and didn't even exist before that.
What was this all about then?
Customs controls not immigration controls. No one ever asked to see our passports when we went on the ferry to Ireland and back - they did want to check the boot for security and customs purposes. But then a police officer can stop you in the UK to do that!
There are customs checkpoints between individual districts in India (not states, districts), and perhaps many other jurisdictions.
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
Have some respect
I said I wish no one ill health, and not brain cancer. But I do want balanced reporting - is that too much to ask?
1) EU/Ireland is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between IRE&NI, and will not grant a withdrawal agreement without it. 2) DUP is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between NI&GB 3) HMG is dealing with this by insisting that we're controlling it *really* using some kind of magic forcefield.
This may explain why May is insisting on her customs partnership thingy, even though her cabinet thinks its bollocks and the EU has already rejected it.
There are five potential outcomes for the next Brexit stage revolving around arrangements for customs and regulatory conformance across the island of Ireland:
1. The UK accepts a withdrawal agreement and transition period including a minimum backstop where Northern Ireland conforms with the EU on customs and regulation of goods. This is already in the draft agreement.
2. The EU no longer requires the Irish backstop because of an acceptable alternative. This is likely to be UK wide customs and regulatory conformance across the UK. The UK would have to make the proposal, by deciding first what it wants, then get the EU to agree the proposal is good of it itself and that it covers everything in the backstop. It would also need to be fleshed out and pinned down before September so the backstop can be removed before the UK exits the EU.
3. The EU drops the requirement for a backstop. Presumably it believes the backstops makes a deal impossible.
4. The UK crashes out of the EU without agreement because it can't accept a deal with the backstop and the EU can't accept one without it.
5. Brexit is delayed indefinitely.
All of these options are problematic, which means all are possible as one of them must necessarily apply.
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
No, but you can.
Not my problem that you can't handle inconvenient facts.
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
Have some respect
I said I wish no one ill health, and not brain cancer. But I do want balanced reporting - is that too much to ask?
I met an Armenian lady yesterday who was very angry that Israel wouldn't accept the Armenian genocide despite overwhelming evidence that it's real. All countries have their own agendas and see things from their own perspective. Is there a genocide going on in Gaza? It certainly sounds like it.
I agree about Armenia and the tendency to see genocides selectively. But the last sentence is with respect bonkers - what's happening in Gaza is oppressive government, bad enough, but genocide is trying to wipe a people out, and we're not seeing that.
That strikes me as very strange. He didn't seem so very influential even when he was active in UK politics. Has he really got a continuing following strong enough to make more than a ripple or two, now?
A pertinent question. Presumably it has to be less about actually preventing a hard brexit than being seen to try to prevent it, as preparation for some future career political move, since there are already lots of people trying to prevent a hard brexit.
I met an Armenian lady yesterday who was very angry that Israel wouldn't accept the Armenian genocide despite overwhelming evidence that it's real. All countries have their own agendas and see things from their own perspective. Is there a genocide going on in Gaza? It certainly sounds like it.
I agree about Armenia and the tendency to see genocides selectively. But the last sentence is with respect bonkers - what's happening in Gaza is oppressive government, bad enough, but genocide is trying to wipe a people out, and we're not seeing that.
Agreed - equating oppression, which is the actual accusation, with genocide belittles what genocide actually is. I am baffled when people do not see how using that term in respect of the Gaza situation undermines the points they want to make about the situation. I have zero doubt that using such language puts off plenty of people who want to agree about a point of oppression, because they do not want to be associated with such nonsense.
Of course, of the EU is so concerned about the Irish border issue there is one way to get round it.
The EU could join the CTA.
The chances of this happening are however approximately the same as the chances of Juncker acting with intelligence, sobriety and integrity.
That doesn't work even as a facetious joke. Both sides of the Irish border are in the CTA already and will remain so. The issue is not movement of people, but goods.
1) EU/Ireland is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between IRE&NI, and will not grant a withdrawal agreement without it. 2) DUP is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between NI&GB 3) HMG is dealing with this by insisting that we're controlling it *really* using some kind of magic forcefield.
This may explain why May is insisting on her customs partnership thingy, even though her cabinet thinks its bollocks and the EU has already rejected it.
There are five potential outcomes for the next Brexit stage revolving around arrangements for customs and regulatory conformance across the island of Ireland:
1. The UK accepts a withdrawal agreement and transition period including a minimum backstop where Northern Ireland conforms with the EU on customs and regulation of goods. This is already in the draft agreement.
2. The EU no longer requires the Irish backstop because of an acceptable alternative. This is likely to be UK wide customs and regulatory conformance across the UK. The UK would have to make the proposal, by deciding first what it wants, then get the EU to agree the proposal is good of it itself and that it covers everything in the backstop. It would also need to be fleshed out and pinned down before September so the backstop can be removed before the UK exits the EU.
3. The EU drops the requirement for a backstop. Presumably it believes the backstops makes a deal impossible.
4. The UK crashes out of the EU without agreement because it can't accept a deal with the backstop and the EU can't accept one without it.
5. Brexit is delayed indefinitely.
All of these options are problematic, which means all are possible as one of them must necessarily apply.
Am I right in thinking that No.4 (crash out) is the default position?
I met an Armenian lady yesterday who was very angry that Israel wouldn't accept the Armenian genocide despite overwhelming evidence that it's real. All countries have their own agendas and see things from their own perspective. Is there a genocide going on in Gaza? It certainly sounds like it.
I agree about Armenia and the tendency to see genocides selectively. But the last sentence is with respect bonkers - what's happening in Gaza is oppressive government, bad enough, but genocide is trying to wipe a people out, and we're not seeing that.
Agreed on both, although one thing (among many) that does bother me about Israel/Palestine is the very real possibility that it will eventually end that way. Both sides now want the whole country from the river to the sea. Neither want the other group to be part of that, due to deep-seated suspicion and hatred born out of a century of conflict.
So at some point it seems very possible that either the Israelis will launch an all-out war on Palestinian people with the aim of ethnically cleansing and then occupying the West Bank and possibly Gaza as well, or the Palestinians backed by their Arab allies will rebel against the Israelis with the sole aim of reversing the Naqba and driving the Israelis into the sea.
At the moment Israel appear to be trying to do this by stealth using economic methods. But whether that will work, or work as quickly as they want it too, is a different question. (Edit - and that isn't a genocide by any definition although it's to say the least morally and legally dubious.) Meanwhile how much more can the Gazans take? There is already more than a suggestion that by 2020 it will be literally uninhabitable, at which point the residents are faced with the choices of leaving, dying or rebelling.
1) EU/Ireland is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between IRE&NI, and will not grant a withdrawal agreement without it. 2) DUP is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between NI&GB 3) HMG is dealing with this by insisting that we're controlling it *really* using some kind of magic forcefield.
This may explain why May is insisting on her customs partnership thingy, even though her cabinet thinks its bollocks and the EU has already rejected it.
There are five potential outcomes for the next Brexit stage revolving around arrangements for customs and regulatory conformance across the island of Ireland:
1. The UK accepts a withdrawal agreement and transition period including a minimum backstop where Northern Ireland conforms with the EU on customs and regulation of goods. This is already in the draft agreement.
2. The EU no longer requires the Irish backstop because of an acceptable alternative. This is likely to be UK wide customs and regulatory conformance across the UK. The UK would have to make the proposal, by deciding first what it wants, then get the EU to agree the proposal is good of it itself and that it covers everything in the backstop. It would also need to be fleshed out and pinned down before September so the backstop can be removed before the UK exits the EU.
3. The EU drops the requirement for a backstop. Presumably it believes the backstops makes a deal impossible.
4. The UK crashes out of the EU without agreement because it can't accept a deal with the backstop and the EU can't accept one without it.
5. Brexit is delayed indefinitely.
All of these options are problematic, which means all are possible as one of them must necessarily apply.
Am I right in thinking that No.4 (crash out) is the default position?
And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills. You really couldn't make it all up could you.
No, but you can.
Especially the bit about Dame Barbara Mills being the brother-in-law of David Mills.
Has anyone a link to this open letter? (Sorry, missed it is to be out tomorrow, for some reason) It's for the party to select whatever candidate by whatever criteria they think most appropriate, and if that includes a choice to select by gender again that is up to them, but I am curious why it isspecifically important in this case that it be a woman MP.
Is it about the overall gender balance of the commons, or the PLP? Because if that is the case every by-election will be with female candidates, since while I believe(?) the proportion of female MPs is the highest it has ever been, it is still well below that of men.
FFS. Why do people keep taking the words 'border' and 'freedom of movement' literally instead of realising that these are shorthand for deciding who can live and work in the UK.
I think I’ve said a hundred times that people are deliberately confusing freedom of movement, which has a very specific meaning in the EU, with anything that happens at the border between two countries.
FoM is the entitlement of EU citizens to an NI number, welfare and healthcare, nothing whatsoever to do with visas or travel across borders.
+1
It's perfectly possible to have no border checks, and very little illegal immigration (Switzerland), just as it's possible to have border checks and lots of illegal immigration (the UK).
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
No, but you can.
Not my problem that you can't handle inconvenient facts.
1) EU/Ireland is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between IRE&NI, and will not grant a withdrawal agreement without it. 2) DUP is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between NI&GB 3) HMG is dealing with this by insisting that we're controlling it *really* using some kind of magic forcefield.
This may explain why May is insisting on her customs partnership thingy, even though her cabinet thinks its bollocks and the EU has already rejected it.
There are five potential outcomes for the next Brexit stage revolving around arrangements for customs and regulatory conformance across the island of Ireland:
1. The UK accepts a withdrawal agreement and transition period including a minimum backstop where Northern Ireland conforms with the EU on customs and regulation of goods. This is already in the draft agreement.
2. The EU no longer requires the Irish backstop because of an acceptable alternative. This is likely to be UK wide customs and regulatory conformance across the UK. The UK would have to make the proposal, by deciding first what it wants, then get the EU to agree the proposal is good of it itself and that it covers everything in the backstop. It would also need to be fleshed out and pinned down before September so the backstop can be removed before the UK exits the EU.
3. The EU drops the requirement for a backstop. Presumably it believes the backstops makes a deal impossible.
4. The UK crashes out of the EU without agreement because it can't accept a deal with the backstop and the EU can't accept one without it.
5. Brexit is delayed indefinitely.
All of these options are problematic, which means all are possible as one of them must necessarily apply.
Am I right in thinking that No.4 (crash out) is the default position?
Yes, and it seems increasingly likely, simply because we cannot be working out all the details behind the scenes ready for a nice little compromise at the appointed time, since we're still arguing what things to ask about.
Has anyone a link to this open letter? It's for the party to select whatever candidate by whatever criteria they think most appropriate, and if that includes a choice to select by gender again that is up to them, but I am curious why it isspecifically important in this case that it be a woman MP.
Is it about the overall gender balance of the commons, or the PLP? Because if that is the case every by-election will be with female candidates, since while I believe(?) the proportion of female MPs is the highest it has ever been, it is still well below that of men.
Dawn Butler has really not covered herself in glory in the last few days (if she ever did). The sheer exasperation of the Blairites is starting to become really quite melancholy to watch:
'Finally, to add insult to injury, we had the frankly witless Dawn Butler telling the BBC that the Corbyn had wanted to act on the Chakrabarti report these last two years but – wait for it – former General Secretary Iain McNicol had blocked it!
Yes, that’ll be the same McNicol who tripled the size of the Compliance Unit and worked tirelessly in the face of resistance from the NEC and Leader’s Office to bring to book the worst offenders in the deluge of anti-Semitism cases hitting the party. We shall see if his successor, already with previous on downplaying the issue, works anywhere near as hard. But it may be advisable not to hold one’s breath.'
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
No, but you can.
Not my problem that you can't handle inconvenient facts.
What does it even matter now?
Because its related to massive ongoing fraud, theft and money laundering. Admittedly its moved on from that notorious address in Finchley which got shut down at the end of February last year, but its moved on elsewhere, for which I and my friends have all the trail. When people wonder why the economy of the UK isn't serving the needs of the ordinary man and woman on the street, they will find the answers in the endemic corruption that exists in this country. That's why it matters!
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
Of course, of the EU is so concerned about the Irish border issue there is one way to get round it.
The EU could join the CTA.
The chances of this happening are however approximately the same as the chances of Juncker acting with intelligence, sobriety and integrity.
That doesn't work even as a facetious joke. Both sides of the Irish border are in the CTA already and will remain so. The issue is not movement of people, but goods.
Has anyone a link to this open letter? It's for the party to select whatever candidate by whatever criteria they think most appropriate, and if that includes a choice to select by gender again that is up to them, but I am curious why it isspecifically important in this case that it be a woman MP.
Is it about the overall gender balance of the commons, or the PLP? Because if that is the case every by-election will be with female candidates, since while I believe(?) the proportion of female MPs is the highest it has ever been, it is still well below that of men.
Finally, to add insult to injury, we had the frankly witless Dawn Butler telling the BBC that the Corbyn had wanted to act on the Chakrabarti report these last two years but – wait for it – former General Secretary Iain McNicol had blocked it!
Is there no way for the Leader of the party to use their considerable influence to take action against such a perfidious rogue then?
Certainly I have no insight or knowledge of the inner dealings of the party, but it strikes me as a rather lame excuse. It works for awhile, but at some point, years down the line, it is not very effective. It's the same reason I think there's been more rumblings about May's latest indecisions - the choices have been hard, and her faction hungry MPs are troublesome to deal with...but after so long that's no excuse for her.
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
No, but you can.
Not my problem that you can't handle inconvenient facts.
What does it even matter now?
Because its related to massive ongoing fraud, theft and money laundering. Admittedly its moved on from that notorious address in Finchley which got shut down at the end of February last year, but its moved on elsewhere, for which I and my friends have all the trail. When people wonder why the economy of the UK isn't serving the needs of the ordinary man and woman on the street, they will find the answers in the endemic corruption that exists in this country. That's why it matters!
Will you and your friends accept that company formation companies often, you know, form lots of companies....at the same address?
If anyone missed the outstanding program on the Syrian conflict presented by Lyse Doucet it's well worth getting hold of.
If evidence was needed that there is rarely such thing as goodies and baddies just conflicting interests this was it.
The only conclusions you could draw was that the only effective involvement was by the Russians and had Assad capitulated as Obama wanted there would have been a bloodbath.
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
No, but you can.
Not my problem that you can't handle inconvenient facts.
What does it even matter now?
Because its related to massive ongoing fraud, theft and money laundering. Admittedly its moved on from that notorious address in Finchley which got shut down at the end of February last year, but its moved on elsewhere, for which I and my friends have all the trail. When people wonder why the economy of the UK isn't serving the needs of the ordinary man and woman on the street, they will find the answers in the endemic corruption that exists in this country. That's why it matters!
One of the few genuinely loved politicians across the political divide and you besmirch her memory. Shame on you
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
No, but you can.
Not my problem that you can't handle inconvenient facts.
What does it even matter now?
Because its related to massive ongoing fraud, theft and money laundering. Admittedly its moved on from that notorious address in Finchley which got shut down at the end of February last year, but its moved on elsewhere, for which I and my friends have all the trail. When people wonder why the economy of the UK isn't serving the needs of the ordinary man and woman on the street, they will find the answers in the endemic corruption that exists in this country. That's why it matters!
Will you and your friends accept that company formation companies often, you know, form lots of companies....at the same address?
I've never said that I don't accept that. There are good company formation agents around, but equally there is a cancer of bad ones around who play a vital role in money laundering on an enormous scale. There are a lot of blind alleyways that you can go down with this. I stick to the facts that can be proved by companies house documents, with no fear or favour for anyone.
@hunchman - My dad says that stuff has been mentioned on one the news channels.
Thanks for letting me know - I haven't heard it but defer to what you're saying. I have been for some of the day after hearing the first bulletins this morning.
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
No, but you can.
Not my problem that you can't handle inconvenient facts.
What does it even matter now?
Because its related to massive ongoing fraud, theft and money laundering. Admittedly its moved on from that notorious address in Finchley which got shut down at the end of February last year, but its moved on elsewhere, for which I and my friends have all the trail. When people wonder why the economy of the UK isn't serving the needs of the ordinary man and woman on the street, they will find the answers in the endemic corruption that exists in this country. That's why it matters!
Although I defend your right to post whatever you want, maybe it would have been better to wait a few days before posting this sort of stuff.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
If they do play stupid hardball, they'll end up with a country on their doorstep that loathes them.
A country which is the second biggest economy in Europe.
A country that buys LOADS more of their stuff than they buy of ours.
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
No, but you can.
Not my problem that you can't handle inconvenient facts.
What does it even matter now?
Because its related to massive ongoing fraud, theft and money laundering. Admittedly its moved on from that notorious address in Finchley which got shut down at the end of February last year, but its moved on elsewhere, for which I and my friends have all the trail. When people wonder why the economy of the UK isn't serving the needs of the ordinary man and woman on the street, they will find the answers in the endemic corruption that exists in this country. That's why it matters!
One of the few genuinely loved politicians across the political divide and you besmirch her memory. Shame on you
Shame on me for stating the facts. Well if I've upset you by stating the facts, then that's hard luck. Sometimes the truth hurts. That doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be said.
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
No, but you can.
Not my problem that you can't handle inconvenient facts.
What does it even matter now?
Because its related to massive ongoing fraud, theft and money laundering. Admittedly its moved on from that notorious address in Finchley which got shut down at the end of February last year, but its moved on elsewhere, for which I and my friends have all the trail. When people wonder why the economy of the UK isn't serving the needs of the ordinary man and woman on the street, they will find the answers in the endemic corruption that exists in this country. That's why it matters!
One of the few genuinely loved politicians across the political divide and you besmirch her memory. Shame on you
Shame on me for stating the facts. Well if I've upset you by stating the facts, then that's hard luck. Sometimes the truth hurts. That doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be said.
There ia a time and place - you do not seem to have any respect for her or the pain of her family and friends
I've never said that I don't accept that. There are good company formation agents around, but equally there is a cancer of bad ones around who play a vital role in money laundering on an enormous scale. There are a lot of blind alleyways that you can go down with this. I stick to the facts that can be proved by companies house documents, with no fear or favour for anyone.
It is startlingly impressive that you can see in public documents that no-one else can.
And incredibly decent of those who you suspect to fill in documents that you think incriminate them.
Or, following occams razor, maybe you're missing something?
Well, the Lib Dem candidate is a woman. You know what you have to do in Lewisham......
Hopefully Labour might pick a poor person - maybe even a young man - from the BME community rather than a white middle class woman like the Lib Dems? How about an all working class shortlist or an all poor persons shortlist or an all on welfare shortlist - someone who actually reflects most voters who live in the seat?!
It just gets a bit boring hearing how tough life is for white middle class women when so many young black men and yes poor young white men have little hope at all of any future in many of our inner cities?
Totally one sided coverage on the death of Tessa Jowell. Whilst I wish no one ill health, and certainly not brain cancer. there has not been one word about her separated husband David McKenzie Donald Mills, who was convicted in an Italian court of fraud, theft and money laundering, and no prizes for guessing where those companies came out of, yes it was that notorious address in Finchley. But of course, we haven't heard one pip or squeak about that.
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
No, but you can.
Not my problem that you can't handle inconvenient facts.
What does it even matter now?
Because its related to massive ongoing fraud, theft and money laundering. Admittedly its moved on from that notorious address in Finchley which got shut down at the end of February last year, but its moved on elsewhere, for which I and my friends have all the trail. When people wonder why the economy of the UK isn't serving the needs of the ordinary man and woman on the street, they will find the answers in the endemic corruption that exists in this country. That's why it matters!
One of the few genuinely loved politicians across the political divide and you besmirch her memory. Shame on you
Shame on me for stating the facts. Well if I've upset you by stating the facts, then that's hard luck. Sometimes the truth hurts. That doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be said.
So why not tell some investigative journalists about it and persuade them it's all true and you'll be famous and on telly and everything? Or is it the case that every single media outlet on the planet is in on the scam? Because if that is the case they are obviously going to arrange for you to die in a uniquely painful and horrible way when they get round to it. Occams razor indeed.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
If they do play stupid hardball, they'll end up with a country on their doorstep that loathes them.
A country which is the second biggest economy in Europe.
A country that buys LOADS more of their stuff than they buy of ours.
And a massive yawning gap in their finances.
They'd be stupid to do so.
Still dreaming ? Their exports are equal to 3.5% of their GDP to us, we export about 10% of our GDP to them. I am not sure who needs whom more.
Massive yawning gap ? The UK is leaving anyway - so they will have to deal with that. Or, were you thinking the UK could still contribute annually ?
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
If they do play stupid hardball, they'll end up with a country on their doorstep that loathes them.
A country which is the second biggest economy in Europe.
A country that buys LOADS more of their stuff than they buy of ours.
And a massive yawning gap in their finances.
They'd be stupid to do so.
Still dreaming ? They exports are equal to 3.5% of their GDP to us, we export about 10% of our GDP to them. I am not sure who needs whom more.
Massive yawning gap ? The UK is leaving anyway - so they will have to deal with that. Or, were you thinking the UK could still contribute annually ?
Guess we'll rip up that £39bn cheque, then...
You not heard of our trade deficit with the EU, then?
Well, the Lib Dem candidate is a woman. You know what you have to do in Lewisham......
How about an all working class shortlist or an all poor persons shortlist or an all on welfare shortlist?
Well now that is opening a can of worms. What if someone was born and raised working class, and still considers themselves such, but they made money or status or whatever and other people think they are middle class now. What if they are working class, but atypical for the working class? What if you have an all poor persons shortlist, but as they become an MP they won't be poor anymore so the point of appointing them is lost?
Looking at the pictures coming out of Jerusalem and with 40,000 Palestinians being urged to cross the military manned border into Israel by Hamas this may well become the explosive news story this week
Well, the Lib Dem candidate is a woman. You know what you have to do in Lewisham......
How about an all working class shortlist or an all poor persons shortlist or an all on welfare shortlist?
Well now that is opening a can of worms. What if someone was born and raised working class, and still considers themselves such, but they made money or status or whatever and other people think they are middle class now. What if they are working class, but atypical for the working class? What if you have an all poor persons shortlist, but as they become an MP they won't be poor anymore so the point of appointing them is lost?
Well, the Lib Dem candidate is a woman. You know what you have to do in Lewisham......
How about an all working class shortlist or an all poor persons shortlist or an all on welfare shortlist?
Well now that is opening a can of worms. What if someone was born and raised working class, and still considers themselves such, but they made money or status or whatever and other people think they are middle class now. What if they are working class, but atypical for the working class? What if you have an all poor persons shortlist, but as they become an MP they won't be poor anymore so the point of appointing them is lost?
How about an all-PBer shortlist?
It would probably have to be an all Labour-PBer shortlist... which would make it a very short list indeed!
Has anyone a link to this open letter? (Sorry, missed it is to be out tomorrow, for some reason) It's for the party to select whatever candidate by whatever criteria they think most appropriate, and if that includes a choice to select by gender again that is up to them, but I am curious why it isspecifically important in this case that it be a woman MP.
Is it about the overall gender balance of the commons, or the PLP? Because if that is the case every by-election will be with female candidates, since while I believe(?) the proportion of female MPs is the highest it has ever been, it is still well below that of men.
The last two MPs were women. Bridget was MP from 1992. I doubt we can change that until some sort of parity has been reached in Westminster.
Has anyone a link to this open letter? (Sorry, missed it is to be out tomorrow, for some reason) It's for the party to select whatever candidate by whatever criteria they think most appropriate, and if that includes a choice to select by gender again that is up to them, but I am curious why it isspecifically important in this case that it be a woman MP.
Is it about the overall gender balance of the commons, or the PLP? Because if that is the case every by-election will be with female candidates, since while I believe(?) the proportion of female MPs is the highest it has ever been, it is still well below that of men.
The last two MPs were women. Bridget was MP from 1992. I doubt we can change that until some sort of parity has been reached in Westminster.
Sounds like if that is the reasoning they need to adopt a formal rule, to stop future arguments, to the effect of 'until such time as 50% of the PLP are women, all by-election candidates will be selected via all-female shortlists, and any seat currently held by a female MP must in future be contested by a female candidate'.
Otherwise it's just a lot of halfmeasures. If it is important here, it is important everywhere.
If a hard border develops it will be because they want it not because we do.
TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS !!!!
(not that one...)
Don't worry Scott. Someone will be along later to try and explain it to you in words of one syllable. You won't understand it of course but the nice soft voice will help with your bedtime.
Well, the Lib Dem candidate is a woman. You know what you have to do in Lewisham......
How about an all working class shortlist or an all poor persons shortlist or an all on welfare shortlist?
Well now that is opening a can of worms. What if someone was born and raised working class, and still considers themselves such, but they made money or status or whatever and other people think they are middle class now. What if they are working class, but atypical for the working class? What if you have an all poor persons shortlist, but as they become an MP they won't be poor anymore so the point of appointing them is lost?
How about an all-PBer shortlist?
It would probably have to be an all Labour-PBer shortlist... which would make it a very short list indeed!
Oh, enough to fill out a decent sized list, but there would not be many corbynite candidates to gain the support of the leadership.
Well, the Lib Dem candidate is a woman. You know what you have to do in Lewisham......
How about an all working class shortlist or an all poor persons shortlist or an all on welfare shortlist?
Well now that is opening a can of worms. What if someone was born and raised working class, and still considers themselves such, but they made money or status or whatever and other people think they are middle class now. What if they are working class, but atypical for the working class? What if you have an all poor persons shortlist, but as they become an MP they won't be poor anymore so the point of appointing them is lost?
How about an all-PBer shortlist?
It would probably have to be an all Labour-PBer shortlist... which would make it a very short list indeed!
Would it? There's you, Surby-baby, Southam, Anazina, Jezziah...
Has anyone a link to this open letter? (Sorry, missed it is to be out tomorrow, for some reason) It's for the party to select whatever candidate by whatever criteria they think most appropriate, and if that includes a choice to select by gender again that is up to them, but I am curious why it isspecifically important in this case that it be a woman MP.
Is it about the overall gender balance of the commons, or the PLP? Because if that is the case every by-election will be with female candidates, since while I believe(?) the proportion of female MPs is the highest it has ever been, it is still well below that of men.
The last two MPs were women. Bridget was MP from 1992. I doubt we can change that until some sort of parity has been reached in Westminster.
Sounds like if that is the reasoning they need to adopt a formal rule, to stop future arguments, to the effect of 'until such time as 50% of the PLP are women, all by-election candidates will be selected via all-female shortlists, and any seat currently held by a female MP must in future be contested by a female candidate'.
Otherwise it's just a lot of halfmeasures. If it is important here, it is important everywhere.
Everything does not have to be written down as a law but still accepted as a means of going forward. Otherwise, we would still have only 30 or so female MPs even today.
Well, the Lib Dem candidate is a woman. You know what you have to do in Lewisham......
How about an all working class shortlist or an all poor persons shortlist or an all on welfare shortlist?
Well now that is opening a can of worms. What if someone was born and raised working class, and still considers themselves such, but they made money or status or whatever and other people think they are middle class now. What if they are working class, but atypical for the working class? What if you have an all poor persons shortlist, but as they become an MP they won't be poor anymore so the point of appointing them is lost?
How about an all-PBer shortlist?
It would probably have to be an all Labour-PBer shortlist... which would make it a very short list indeed!
Would it? There's you, Surby-baby, Southam, Anazina, Jezziah...
Sandy Rentool, volcanopete, danny555, bobajobabob, jobabobajob, twistedfirestopper, bjo - need we go on?
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
If they do play stupid hardball, they'll end up with a country on their doorstep that loathes them.
A country which is the second biggest economy in Europe.
A country that buys LOADS more of their stuff than they buy of ours.
And a massive yawning gap in their finances.
They'd be stupid to do so.
Still dreaming ? They exports are equal to 3.5% of their GDP to us, we export about 10% of our GDP to them. I am not sure who needs whom more.
Massive yawning gap ? The UK is leaving anyway - so they will have to deal with that. Or, were you thinking the UK could still contribute annually ?
Guess we'll rip up that £39bn cheque, then...
You not heard of our trade deficit with the EU, then?
I have. You suddenly expect all our importers to switch suppliers ? There is a reason why we buy from them. If there wasn't we would buy from someplace else.
Has anyone a link to this open letter? (Sorry, missed it is to be out tomorrow, for some reason) It's for the party to select whatever candidate by whatever criteria they think most appropriate, and if that includes a choice to select by gender again that is up to them, but I am curious why it isspecifically important in this case that it be a woman MP.
Is it about the overall gender balance of the commons, or the PLP? Because if that is the case every by-election will be with female candidates, since while I believe(?) the proportion of female MPs is the highest it has ever been, it is still well below that of men.
The last two MPs were women. Bridget was MP from 1992. I doubt we can change that until some sort of parity has been reached in Westminster.
Sounds like if that is the reasoning they need to adopt a formal rule, to stop future arguments, to the effect of 'until such time as 50% of the PLP are women, all by-election candidates will be selected via all-female shortlists, and any seat currently held by a female MP must in future be contested by a female candidate'.
Otherwise it's just a lot of halfmeasures. If it is important here, it is important everywhere.
Everything does not have to be written down as a law but still accepted as a means of going forward.
Yes, but whether it is formally written down or an informal rule, they should go ahead and do it, and save themselves the need to talk about it everytime a by-election comes up. Clearly there isn't a convention in place else they wouldn't need to write a letter explaining why it is so important, so perhaps better I had put it that they need to 'settle' this. It strikes me as extreme to adopt such a level of inflexibility despite an admirable aim to increase female representation, but it's not like they wouldn't get at least as much praise as criticism for stating the preferred position so clearly, and it would shortcut arguments.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
If they do play stupid hardball, they'll end up with a country on their doorstep that loathes them.
A country which is the second biggest economy in Europe.
A country that buys LOADS more of their stuff than they buy of ours.
And a massive yawning gap in their finances.
They'd be stupid to do so.
Still dreaming ? They exports are equal to 3.5% of their GDP to us, we export about 10% of our GDP to them. I am not sure who needs whom more.
Massive yawning gap ? The UK is leaving anyway - so they will have to deal with that. Or, were you thinking the UK could still contribute annually ?
Guess we'll rip up that £39bn cheque, then...
You not heard of our trade deficit with the EU, then?
Re our trade deficit with the EU.
Assuming there's a no-deal Brexit, trade wouldn't stop, though it would probably be hampered and more expensive.
But even if it did stop, I don't think many people will be jumping for joy at the suddenly improved balance of trade; more likely there'd be major unrest when things we take for granted are suddenly no longer available.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
If they do play stupid hardball, they'll end up with a country on their doorstep that loathes them.
A country which is the second biggest economy in Europe.
A country that buys LOADS more of their stuff than they buy of ours.
And a massive yawning gap in their finances.
They'd be stupid to do so.
Still dreaming ? They exports are equal to 3.5% of their GDP to us, we export about 10% of our GDP to them. I am not sure who needs whom more.
Massive yawning gap ? The UK is leaving anyway - so they will have to deal with that. Or, were you thinking the UK could still contribute annually ?
Guess we'll rip up that £39bn cheque, then...
You not heard of our trade deficit with the EU, then?
I have. You suddenly expect all our importers to switch suppliers ? There is a reason why we buy from them. If there wasn't we would buy from someplace else.
Well, the Lib Dem candidate is a woman. You know what you have to do in Lewisham......
How about an all working class shortlist or an all poor persons shortlist or an all on welfare shortlist?
Well now that is opening a can of worms. What if someone was born and raised working class, and still considers themselves such, but they made money or status or whatever and other people think they are middle class now. What if they are working class, but atypical for the working class? What if you have an all poor persons shortlist, but as they become an MP they won't be poor anymore so the point of appointing them is lost?
How about an all-PBer shortlist?
It would probably have to be an all Labour-PBer shortlist... which would make it a very short list indeed!
Would it? There's you, Surby-baby, Southam, Anazina, Jezziah...
Sandy Rentool, volcanopete, danny555, bobajobabob, jobabobajob, twistedfirestopper, bjo - need we go on?
Well, the Lib Dem candidate is a woman. You know what you have to do in Lewisham......
How about an all working class shortlist or an all poor persons shortlist or an all on welfare shortlist?
Well now that is opening a can of worms. What if someone was born and raised working class, and still considers themselves such, but they made money or status or whatever and other people think they are middle class now. What if they are working class, but atypical for the working class? What if you have an all poor persons shortlist, but as they become an MP they won't be poor anymore so the point of appointing them is lost?
How about an all-PBer shortlist?
It would probably have to be an all Labour-PBer shortlist... which would make it a very short list indeed!
Would it? There's you, Surby-baby, Southam, Anazina, Jezziah...
Sandy Rentool, volcanopete, danny555, bobajobabob, jobabobajob, twistedfirestopper, bjo - need we go on?
murali, Apocalypse...
Not to forget Nick Palmer of course. I take your point; you ToryPBers are obviously feeling outnumbered.
But I don't want any of you £3 Corbyn-voters applying!
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
Well, the Lib Dem candidate is a woman. You know what you have to do in Lewisham......
How about an all working class shortlist or an all poor persons shortlist or an all on welfare shortlist?
Well now that is opening a can of worms. What if someone was born and raised working class, and still considers themselves such, but they made money or status or whatever and other people think they are middle class now. What if they are working class, but atypical for the working class? What if you have an all poor persons shortlist, but as they become an MP they won't be poor anymore so the point of appointing them is lost?
How about an all-PBer shortlist?
It would probably have to be an all Labour-PBer shortlist... which would make it a very short list indeed!
Would it? There's you, Surby-baby, Southam, Anazina, Jezziah...
Sandy Rentool, volcanopete, danny555, bobajobabob, jobabobajob, twistedfirestopper, bjo - need we go on?
murali, Apocalypse...
Not to forget Nick Palmer of course. I take your point; you ToryPBers are obviously feeling outnumbered.
But I don't want any of you £3 Corbyn-voters applying!
Don't look at me - I didn't bother voting in the 2016 contest
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
That is a very harsh view, but I would say William is the among the most negative EU supporters I have ever come across (that is to say, negative about the EU). There are positive aspects to the EU, and most definitely positive aspects of many of the aspirations of the EU to be a nicer, better kind of instutition, whether or not it meets those aspirations, but he likes to emphasise instead on its apparent ruthlessness, its calculating coldness.
I don't think the image the EU has of itself is the same that William has, even though he supports it so much, but each to their own.
1) EU/Ireland is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between IRE&NI, and will not grant a withdrawal agreement without it. 2) DUP is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between NI&GB 3) HMG is dealing with this by insisting that we're controlling it *really* using some kind of magic forcefield.
This may explain why May is insisting on her customs partnership thingy, even though her cabinet thinks its bollocks and the EU has already rejected it.
There are five potential outcomes for the next Brexit stage revolving around arrangements for customs and regulatory conformance across the island of Ireland:
1. The UK accepts a withdrawal agreement and transition period including a minimum backstop where Northern Ireland conforms with the EU on customs and regulation of goods. This is already in the draft agreement.
2. The EU no longer requires the Irish backstop because of an acceptable alternative. This is likely to be UK wide customs and regulatory conformance across the UK. The UK would have to make the proposal, by deciding first what it wants, then get the EU to agree the proposal is good of it itself and that it covers everything in the backstop. It would also need to be fleshed out and pinned down before September so the backstop can be removed before the UK exits the EU.
3. The EU drops the requirement for a backstop. Presumably it believes the backstops makes a deal impossible.
4. The UK crashes out of the EU without agreement because it can't accept a deal with the backstop and the EU can't accept one without it.
5. Brexit is delayed indefinitely.
All of these options are problematic, which means all are possible as one of them must necessarily apply.
@AnneJGP: Am I right in thinking that No.4 (crash out) is the default position?
----
Correct, although not necessarily the most likely. I think (1) - inclusion of NI backstop in the withdrawal agreement - is the most likely because it's already in the draft treaty and there is no consensus for anything else. It looks like other commentators here disagree. Demands some deft handling of the DUP however.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
That is a very harsh view, but I would say William is the among the most negative EU supporters I have ever come across (that is to say, negative about the EU). There are positive aspects to the EU, and most definitely positive aspects of many of the aspirations of the EU to be a nicer, better kind of instutition, whether or not it meets those aspirations, but he likes to emphasise instead on its apparent ruthlessness, its calculating coldness.
I don't think the image the EU has of itself is the same that William has, even though he supports it so much, but each to their own.
I don't think the image I have of the EU matches up with the image you pick up from my posts. We're in the midst of Brexit negotiations and I tend towards pushing a fatalistic line about their prospects for success.
People in the UK often cast the EU as a bully, while simultaneously believing it's a weak, effete organisation that nobody needs. We don't generally have a clear-eyed view of the power dynamics.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
If they do play stupid hardball, they'll end up with a country on their doorstep that loathes them.
A country which is the second biggest economy in Europe.
A country that buys LOADS more of their stuff than they buy of ours.
And a massive yawning gap in their finances.
They'd be stupid to do so.
Still dreaming ? Their exports are equal to 3.5% of their GDP to us, we export about 10% of our GDP to them. I am not sure who needs whom more.
Massive yawning gap ? The UK is leaving anyway - so they will have to deal with that. Or, were you thinking the UK could still contribute annually ?
It doesn't really matter whether they would lose more than us, or vice versa. The fundamental point is that both would lose to a greater or lesser extent (but significantly, on both sides). And the greater you think the downsides a hard Brexit are to the UK, the greater the consequential downsides of that to the EU (and the wider world). It is not a zero sum game.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
That is a very harsh view, but I would say William is the among the most negative EU supporters I have ever come across (that is to say, negative about the EU). There are positive aspects to the EU, and most definitely positive aspects of many of the aspirations of the EU to be a nicer, better kind of instutition, whether or not it meets those aspirations, but he likes to emphasise instead on its apparent ruthlessness, its calculating coldness.
I don't think the image the EU has of itself is the same that William has, even though he supports it so much, but each to their own.
I don't think the image I have of the EU matches up with the image you pick up from my posts. We're in the midst of Brexit negotiations and I tend towards pushing a fatalistic line about their prospects for success.
I'm just glad you do actually like it, rather than simply live in fear of its awesome and inevitable might!
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
That is a very harsh view, but I would say William is the among the most negative EU supporters I have ever come across (that is to say, negative about the EU). There are positive aspects to the EU, and most definitely positive aspects of many of the aspirations of the EU to be a nicer, better kind of instutition, whether or not it meets those aspirations, but he likes to emphasise instead on its apparent ruthlessness, its calculating coldness.
I don't think the image the EU has of itself is the same that William has, even though he supports it so much, but each to their own.
I don't think the image I have of the EU matches up with the image you pick up from my posts. We're in the midst of Brexit negotiations and I tend towards pushing a fatalistic line about their prospects for success.
People in the UK often cast the EU as a bully, while simultaneously believing it's a weak, effete organisation that nobody needs. We don't generally have a clear-eyed view of the power dynamics.
No, I have a very clear-eyed view of it. It is a bullying organisation that no one needs.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
That is a very harsh view, but I would say William is the among the most negative EU supporters I have ever come across (that is to say, negative about the EU). There are positive aspects to the EU, and most definitely positive aspects of many of the aspirations of the EU to be a nicer, better kind of instutition, whether or not it meets those aspirations, but he likes to emphasise instead on its apparent ruthlessness, its calculating coldness.
I don't think the image the EU has of itself is the same that William has, even though he supports it so much, but each to their own.
I don't think the image I have of the EU matches up with the image you pick up from my posts. We're in the midst of Brexit negotiations and I tend towards pushing a fatalistic line about their prospects for success.
People in the UK often cast the EU as a bully, while simultaneously believing it's a weak, effete organisation that nobody needs. We don't generally have a clear-eyed view of the power dynamics.
Isn't it possible to be a bully and to ultimately be weak?
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
That is a very harsh view, but I would say William is the among the most negative EU supporters I have ever come across (that is to say, negative about the EU). There are positive aspects to the EU, and most definitely positive aspects of many of the aspirations of the EU to be a nicer, better kind of instutition, whether or not it meets those aspirations, but he likes to emphasise instead on its apparent ruthlessness, its calculating coldness.
I don't think the image the EU has of itself is the same that William has, even though he supports it so much, but each to their own.
I don't think the image I have of the EU matches up with the image you pick up from my posts. We're in the midst of Brexit negotiations and I tend towards pushing a fatalistic line about their prospects for success.
People in the UK often cast the EU as a bully, while simultaneously believing it's a weak, effete organisation that nobody needs. We don't generally have a clear-eyed view of the power dynamics.
Isn't it possible to be a bully and to ultimately be weak?
Most bullies act out of fear...
Yes, and this is perhaps why the EU is perceived as bullying by people who assume it's weak, when in fact it's merely powerful.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
That is a very harsh view, but I would say William is the among the most negative EU supporters I have ever come across (that is to say, negative about the EU). There are positive aspects to the EU, and most definitely positive aspects of many of the aspirations of the EU to be a nicer, better kind of instutition, whether or not it meets those aspirations, but he likes to emphasise instead on its apparent ruthlessness, its calculating coldness.
I don't think the image the EU has of itself is the same that William has, even though he supports it so much, but each to their own.
I don't think the image I have of the EU matches up with the image you pick up from my posts. We're in the midst of Brexit negotiations and I tend towards pushing a fatalistic line about their prospects for success.
People in the UK often cast the EU as a bully, while simultaneously believing it's a weak, effete organisation that nobody needs. We don't generally have a clear-eyed view of the power dynamics.
Isn't it possible to be a bully and to ultimately be weak?
Most bullies act out of fear...
Yes, and this is perhaps why the EU is perceived as bullying by people who assume it's weak, when in fact it's merely powerful.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
I don't think the image the EU has of itself is the same that William has, even though he supports it so much, but each to their own.
I don't think the image I have of the EU matches up with the image you pick up from my posts. We're in the midst of Brexit negotiations and I tend towards pushing a fatalistic line about their prospects for success.
People in the UK often cast the EU as a bully, while simultaneously believing it's a weak, effete organisation that nobody needs. We don't generally have a clear-eyed view of the power dynamics.
Isn't it possible to be a bully and to ultimately be weak?
Most bullies act out of fear...
Actually they don't. Most bullies are socially successful. Not an EU comment btw
Edit. The EU comment is that they own the system and manage the process. It gives them a big advantage. We can either be a member helping to shape the rules, or we are outside doing what we, are told by am organization that no longer represents our interest, or we are isolated completely.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
That is a very harsh view, but I would say William is the among the most negative EU supporters I have ever come across (that is to say, negative about the EU). There are positive aspects to the EU, and most definitely positive aspects of many of the aspirations of the EU to be a nicer, better kind of instutition, whether or not it meets those aspirations, but he likes to emphasise instead on its apparent ruthlessness, its calculating coldness.
I don't think the image the EU has of itself is the same that William has, even though he supports it so much, but each to their own.
I don't think the image I have of the EU matches up with the image you pick up from my posts. We're in the midst of Brexit negotiations and I tend towards pushing a fatalistic line about their prospects for success.
People in the UK often cast the EU as a bully, while simultaneously believing it's a weak, effete organisation that nobody needs. We don't generally have a clear-eyed view of the power dynamics.
Isn't it possible to be a bully and to ultimately be weak?
Most bullies act out of fear...
Yes, and this is perhaps why the EU is perceived as bullying by people who assume it's weak, when in fact it's merely powerful.
Darth Gideon (aka Chancellor Osborne): You are fulfilling your destiny, TSE. Become my apprentice. Learn to use the Daft Side of the Force. There's no turning back now.
TSE: I will do whatever you ask. Just help me save Theresa's political career. I can't live without her. If she resigns, I don't know what I will do regarding "May is crap" threads!
Darth Gideon: To cheat political osbcurity is a power only one has achieved through centuries of the study of the Force. But if we work together, I know we can discover the secret to eternal AV Threads!
TSE: I pledge myself to your teachings. To the ways of the REMAIN Campaign.
Darth Gideon: Good. Good! The Force is strong with you, TSE. A powerful REMAINER you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Eagles.
Well, the Lib Dem candidate is a woman. You know what you have to do in Lewisham......
How about an all working class shortlist or an all poor persons shortlist or an all on welfare shortlist?
Well now that is opening a can of worms. What if someone was born and raised working class, and still considers themselves such, but they made money or status or whatever and other people think they are middle class now. What if they are working class, but atypical for the working class? What if you have an all poor persons shortlist, but as they become an MP they won't be poor anymore so the point of appointing them is lost?
How about an all-PBer shortlist?
It would probably have to be an all Labour-PBer shortlist... which would make it a very short list indeed!
Would it? There's you, Surby-baby, Southam, Anazina, Jezziah...
Sandy Rentool, volcanopete, danny555, bobajobabob, jobabobajob, twistedfirestopper, bjo - need we go on?
Has anyone a link to this open letter? (Sorry, missed it is to be out tomorrow, for some reason) It's for the party to select whatever candidate by whatever criteria they think most appropriate, and if that includes a choice to select by gender again that is up to them, but I am curious why it isspecifically important in this case that it be a woman MP.
Is it about the overall gender balance of the commons, or the PLP? Because if that is the case every by-election will be with female candidates, since while I believe(?) the proportion of female MPs is the highest it has ever been, it is still well below that of men.
Why is one protected group more important then the other?
Why for example should you have a woman MP over an ethnic minority? Would a trans woman count? Would you block a highly qualified black gay man to get another all women shortlist instead? How about a disabled Muslim over a white straight woman?
This is where the Social Justice Warrior nonsense eats itself. Too much equality will lead to too much inequality.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
I don't think the image the EU has of itself is the same that William has, even though he supports it so much, but each to their own.
I don't think the image I have of the EU matches up with the image you pick up from my posts. We're in the midst of Brexit negotiations and I tend towards pushing a fatalistic line about their prospects for success.
People in the UK often cast the EU as a bully, while simultaneously believing it's a weak, effete organisation that nobody needs. We don't generally have a clear-eyed view of the power dynamics.
Isn't it possible to be a bully and to ultimately be weak?
Most bullies act out of fear...
Actually they don't. Most bullies are socially successful. Not an EU comment btw
Edit. The EU comment is that they own the system and manage the process. It gives them a big advantage. We can either be a member helping to shape the rules, or we are outside doing what we, are told by am organization that no longer represents our interest, or we are isolated completely.
The problem the EU has is that they bully their members on the inside as well as those countries outside. Just look at how they have bullied Ireland and Denmark in the past when they didn't just go along with what the EU wanted.
I think the EU wants the negotiations to fail. They have probably made the calculation that the prospect of a hard Brexit may lead to the collapse of the British government, a request for an extension of the Article 50 period, a second referendum that may reverse Brexit or the coming to power of a quisling minority Labour government, backed by some Tory MPs, that will sign up to Britain’s Treaty of Versailles, whereby we follow all the rules but have no say.
It makes sense.
@CarlottaVance's favourite commentator understood the dynamic over a year ago.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And you think it is good to be part of an organisation like that? You are a truly warped individual.
Better to be inside the tent p***ing out .....
- LBJ
He was wrong on that as he was on so many other things.
Comments
FoM is the entitlement of EU citizens to an NI number, welfare and healthcare, nothing whatsoever to do with visas or travel across borders.
No one has any issue with freedom of movement with Ireland. And the common travel area means we have common immigration policies in terms of which nations have visa free travel and which don't.
We aren't going to make Greeks or Slovakians apply for tourist visas to come to the UK - whether direct or via Dublin - any more than we make Nicaraguan or Vanuatu citizens do so now.
The difference is they won't have residency, working and welfare and full NHS usage rights in the UK but will in the Republic.
It's not difficult you know - Ireland is already an independent nation with its own welfare system, health service, tax system and excise system.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5722379/Former-Conservative-Party-boycotts-Sunday-services-conducted-gay-dean.html
Lord Tebbit and his sodomite comment is as bad as Ken Livingstone and his Zionist remarks. Neither should remain in a main stream party. I think the Lib Dems had a problem with a Baroness over comments on Jewish people and got rid of her.
On a broader point I once knew a Conservative who has been a candidate for local elections (2008 & 2018) and has aspirations for parliament who detailed how if he had power he would expunge Muslims through extermination camps located in rural parts of Britain in a similar fashion to the Nazi's. I thought he was an arsehole at the time but surely someone like that needs to have any political career snuffed out. What is the best way to get the media to catch him out? A sting perhaps?
And although Tessa separated from David McKenzie Donald Mills back in 2006, in order to save her political career, she was still living in the same house as him until her death today. But you won't hear anything of that in what passes as our mainstream media today. And then to think that Dame Barbara Mills who was public director of prosecutions was brother-in-law of the said David McKenzie Donald Mills.
You really couldn't make it all up could you.
*innocent face*
https://twitter.com/DawnButlerBrent/status/995719062524235777
1. The UK accepts a withdrawal agreement and transition period including a minimum backstop where Northern Ireland conforms with the EU on customs and regulation of goods. This is already in the draft agreement.
2. The EU no longer requires the Irish backstop because of an acceptable alternative. This is likely to be UK wide customs and regulatory conformance across the UK. The UK would have to make the proposal, by deciding first what it wants, then get the EU to agree the proposal is good of it itself and that it covers everything in the backstop. It would also need to be fleshed out and pinned down before September so the backstop can be removed before the UK exits the EU.
3. The EU drops the requirement for a backstop. Presumably it believes the backstops makes a deal impossible.
4. The UK crashes out of the EU without agreement because it can't accept a deal with the backstop and the EU can't accept one without it.
5. Brexit is delayed indefinitely.
All of these options are problematic, which means all are possible as one of them must necessarily apply.
The EU could join the CTA.
The chances of this happening are however approximately the same as the chances of Juncker acting with intelligence, sobriety and integrity.
So at some point it seems very possible that either the Israelis will launch an all-out war on Palestinian people with the aim of ethnically cleansing and then occupying the West Bank and possibly Gaza as well, or the Palestinians backed by their Arab allies will rebel against the Israelis with the sole aim of reversing the Naqba and driving the Israelis into the sea.
At the moment Israel appear to be trying to do this by stealth using economic methods. But whether that will work, or work as quickly as they want it too, is a different question. (Edit - and that isn't a genocide by any definition although it's to say the least morally and legally dubious.) Meanwhile how much more can the Gazans take? There is already more than a suggestion that by 2020 it will be literally uninhabitable, at which point the residents are faced with the choices of leaving, dying or rebelling.
The world is getting stranger and stranger.....
Is it about the overall gender balance of the commons, or the PLP? Because if that is the case every by-election will be with female candidates, since while I believe(?) the proportion of female MPs is the highest it has ever been, it is still well below that of men.
It's perfectly possible to have no border checks, and very little illegal immigration (Switzerland), just as it's possible to have border checks and lots of illegal immigration (the UK).
'Finally, to add insult to injury, we had the frankly witless Dawn Butler telling the BBC that the Corbyn had wanted to act on the Chakrabarti report these last two years but – wait for it – former General Secretary Iain McNicol had blocked it!
Yes, that’ll be the same McNicol who tripled the size of the Compliance Unit and worked tirelessly in the face of resistance from the NEC and Leader’s Office to bring to book the worst offenders in the deluge of anti-Semitism cases hitting the party. We shall see if his successor, already with previous on downplaying the issue, works anywhere near as hard. But it may be advisable not to hold one’s breath.'
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2018/05/11/the-shame-of-barnet-losing-a-council-because-the-voters-think-youre-racist/#more-21982
It makes sense.
More NI produce comes to GB....
Certainly I have no insight or knowledge of the inner dealings of the party, but it strikes me as a rather lame excuse. It works for awhile, but at some point, years down the line, it is not very effective. It's the same reason I think there's been more rumblings about May's latest indecisions - the choices have been hard, and her faction hungry MPs are troublesome to deal with...but after so long that's no excuse for her.
If evidence was needed that there is rarely such thing as goodies and baddies just conflicting interests this was it.
The only conclusions you could draw was that the only effective involvement was by the Russians and had Assad capitulated as Obama wanted there would have been a bloodbath.
http://www.coppolacomment.com/2017/03/game-theory-in-brexitland.html
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
A country which is the second biggest economy in Europe.
A country that buys LOADS more of their stuff than they buy of ours.
And a massive yawning gap in their finances.
They'd be stupid to do so.
And incredibly decent of those who you suspect to fill in documents that you think incriminate them.
Or, following occams razor, maybe you're missing something?
It just gets a bit boring hearing how tough life is for white middle class women when so many young black men and yes poor young white men have little hope at all of any future in many of our inner cities?
Just a question...
And with that, good night.
Massive yawning gap ? The UK is leaving anyway - so they will have to deal with that. Or, were you thinking the UK could still contribute annually ?
You not heard of our trade deficit with the EU, then?
Otherwise it's just a lot of halfmeasures. If it is important here, it is important everywhere.
Assuming there's a no-deal Brexit, trade wouldn't stop, though it would probably be hampered and more expensive.
But even if it did stop, I don't think many people will be jumping for joy at the suddenly improved balance of trade; more likely there'd be major unrest when things we take for granted are suddenly no longer available.
But I don't want any of you £3 Corbyn-voters applying!
Although the book is worth £150 or so so that's actually closer to £200
I don't think the image the EU has of itself is the same that William has, even though he supports it so much, but each to their own.
Almost forgot, I voted Labour at the 2015 general election
Night all.
----
Correct, although not necessarily the most likely. I think (1) - inclusion of NI backstop in the withdrawal agreement - is the most likely because it's already in the draft treaty and there is no consensus for anything else. It looks like other commentators here disagree. Demands some deft handling of the DUP however.
People in the UK often cast the EU as a bully, while simultaneously believing it's a weak, effete organisation that nobody needs. We don't generally have a clear-eyed view of the power dynamics.
- LBJ
How many kids did you kill today?"
Most bullies act out of fear...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNS4t5UCBfI
Edit. The EU comment is that they own the system and manage the process. It gives them a big advantage. We can either be a member helping to shape the rules, or we are outside doing what we, are told by am organization that no longer represents our interest, or we are isolated completely.
Darth Gideon (aka Chancellor Osborne): You are fulfilling your destiny, TSE. Become my apprentice. Learn to use the Daft Side of the Force. There's no turning back now.
TSE: I will do whatever you ask. Just help me save Theresa's political career. I can't live without her. If she resigns, I don't know what I will do regarding "May is crap" threads!
Darth Gideon: To cheat political osbcurity is a power only one has achieved through centuries of the study of the Force. But if we work together, I know we can discover the secret to eternal AV Threads!
TSE: I pledge myself to your teachings. To the ways of the REMAIN Campaign.
Darth Gideon: Good. Good! The Force is strong with you, TSE. A powerful REMAINER you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Eagles.
TSE: Thank you... my Master.
Darth Gideon: Lord Eagles... rise.
Why for example should you have a woman MP over an ethnic minority? Would a trans woman count? Would you block a highly qualified black gay man to get another all women shortlist instead? How about a disabled Muslim over a white straight woman?
This is where the Social Justice Warrior nonsense eats itself. Too much equality will lead to too much inequality.