You won't be laughing in November if No Deal, not only would there likely be riots in London, the £ and stock market would collapse through the floor, the SNP would be threatening Indyref2 asap etc
No way a government could survive that, a government of national unity may be the only way out
Riots tend to happen in warm months. No more riot months before Brexit.
The cabinet are to meet in the morning to discuss Brexit. Interesting
It would be great to believe that they would actually discuss Brexit. But based on past experience, May will simply repeat her usual scripted lines and everyone will agree with her and nothing will be discussed at all. The Cabinet are totally gutless. They all know that May's plan is doomed but they are all more interested in holding onto their offices and positioning themselves for the subsequent leadership campaign to actually take control of the situation.
Why do you not wait and see.
And Amber Rudds letter seems responsible and could receive considerable support .
I think her characterisation of conservatives as practical, principled and realistic may be out of step with the current parliamentary party.
You won't be laughing in November if No Deal, not only would there likely be riots in London, the £ and stock market would collapse through the floor, the SNP would be threatening Indyref2 asap etc
No way a government could survive that, a government of national unity may be the only way out
Riots tend to happen in warm months. No more riot months before Brexit.
Really worrying to see that this is the analysis of someone who held one of the great offices of the land. Basically, it totally ignores reality in that Chequers has been rejected. Apart from this, it has nothing to offer at all by way of a solution.
Funny, I was just thinking how fresh out of ideas you were, beyond banging your head and shouting ‘no deal’ from some unaffected outpost on the other side of the world.
When has Barnier ever said the backstop cannot include work permits and requires everlasting payments?
He has said the backstop requires NI to be in the Customs Union effectively and to have regulatory alignment and that will have to apply to the whole UK unless and until an acceptable technical solution can be foundagain
Wrong on every level. Barnier has said the backstop can only apply to NI (which is not possible). He has rejected an all-UK backstop specifically because he says it will lead to SM access via the backdoor - eg without payments and FOM. So if Barnier is now to accept an all UK backstop it is logical that he will insist on this.
A NI-only backstop will not happen because the DUP will no confidence your Government.
It is regulatory alignment he has said would be needed, he has not said anything about work permits not being permissible or extra payments beyond those committed to required
You are continuing to mix up all the issues just so that you can repeat your talking points.
Barnier has always ruled out an all-UK backstop because it would allow SM and CU access for the UK without accepting the four 'freedoms'. To 'solve' the NI border you need the UK to be in both the CU and SM - which is cherry picking if the UK do not adopt FOM. This week he is continuing to reject an all UK backstop for the same reason.
On a separate matter, the NI-only backstop, he wants NI to have regulatory alignment with the EU (eg in the SM) and for NI to be in the CU - creating both a regulatory and customs border in the Irish Sea. His part solution is that the whole UK remain in the CU, which would mean that there would be no need for a customs border in the Irish Sea but you would still need a regulatory border.
All of the above should be unacceptable to May, so if she sells out on it the DUP will vote her out.
It is you have inserted the FOM 'cherry picking' not Barnier.
There is a majority in the Commons for a whole UK Customs Union without the DUP, there is no majority in the Commons for No Deal.
If May comes back with No Deal the end result will either be we stay in the EEA or EUref2 or a general election
Again, that would seem to be the correct analysis. There is already a regulatory border on the Foyle, just as there is on the Tweed. The Irish Republic already has different laws to NI, and on very key matters too - eg abortion.
Really worrying to see that this is the analysis of someone who held one of the great offices of the land. Basically, it totally ignores reality in that Chequers has been rejected. Apart from this, it has nothing to offer at all by way of a solution.
Funny, I was just thinking how fresh out of ideas you were, beyond banging your head and shouting ‘no deal’ from some unaffected outpost on the other side of the world.
Archer is in the UK at present I believe
A final rearguard action against a Customs Union before returning to the safety of the South Pacific?
You won't be laughing in November if No Deal, not only would there likely be riots in London, the £ and stock market would collapse through the floor, the SNP would be threatening Indyref2 asap etc
No way a government could survive that, a government of national unity may be the only way out
Riots tend to happen in warm months. No more riot months before Brexit.
You won't be laughing in November if No Deal, not only would there likely be riots in London, the £ and stock market would collapse through the floor, the SNP would be threatening Indyref2 asap etc
No way a government could survive that, a government of national unity may be the only way out
Riots tend to happen in warm months. No more riot months before Brexit.
You won't be laughing in November if No Deal, not only would there likely be riots in London, the £ and stock market would collapse through the floor, the SNP would be threatening Indyref2 asap etc
No way a government could survive that, a government of national unity may be the only way out
Riots tend to happen in warm months. No more riot months before Brexit.
Bah, you forget the December 2010 riot in London.
Tend is a word that hides a multitude of sins.
A bit like when I use 'quasi' to describe the Tory leadership voting system as 'quasi-AV'
Not so much Brexit as mostly in the Far East, on trade concerns. Seasoned by the likelihood of interest rates going up in the USA, and anxiety about the Italian budget.
To reassure @Cyclefree I manage my time efficiently. As with baked goods, some threads can be prepared earlier, requiring only minor last minute effort to pull off a party piece.
When has Barnier ever said the backstop cannot include work permits and requires everlasting payments?
He has said the backstop requires NI to be in the Customs Union effectively and to have regulatory alignment and that will have to apply to the whole UK unless and until an acceptable technical solution can be foundagain
Wrong on every level. Barnier has said the backstop can only apply to NI (which is not possible). He has rejected an all-UK backstop specifically because he says it will lead to SM access via the backdoor - eg without payments and FOM. So if Barnier is now to accept an all UK backstop it is logical that he will insist on this.
A NI-only backstop will not happen because the DUP will no confidence your Government.
It is regulatory alignment he has said would be needed, he has not said anything about work permits not being permissible or extra payments beyond those committed to required
You are continuing to mix up all the issues just so that you can repeat your talking points.
Barnier has always ruled out an all-UK backstop because it would allow SM and CU access for the UK without accepting the four 'freedoms'. To 'solve' the NI border you need the UK to be in both the CU and SM - which is cherry picking if the UK do not adopt FOM. This week he is continuing to reject an all UK backstop for the same reason.
On a separate matter, the NI-only backstop, he wants NI to have regulatory alignment with the EU (eg in the SM) and for NI to be in the CU - creating both a regulatory and customs border in the Irish Sea. His part solution is that the whole UK remain in the CU, which would mean that there would be no need for a customs border in the Irish Sea but you would still need a regulatory border.
All of the above should be unacceptable to May, so if she sells out on it the DUP will vote her out.
It is you have inserted the FOM 'cherry picking' not Barnier.
There is a majority in the Commons for a whole UK Customs Union without the DUP, there is no majority in the Commons for No Deal.
If May comes back with No Deal the end result will either be we stay in the EEA or EUref2 or a general election
Again, that would seem to be the correct analysis. There is already a regulatory border on the Foyle, just as there is on the Tweed. The Irish Republic already has different laws to NI, and on very key matters too - eg abortion.
By their own choice!
Under this proposal the population in NI will have no representation whatsoever for their own laws. How can anyone view that as acceptable?
The cabinet are to meet in the morning to discuss Brexit. Interesting
It would be great to believe that they would actually discuss Brexit. But based on past experience, May will simply repeat her usual scripted lines and everyone will agree with her and nothing will be discussed at all. The Cabinet are totally gutless. They all know that May's plan is doomed but they are all more interested in holding onto their offices and positioning themselves for the subsequent leadership campaign to actually take control of the situation.
Why do you not wait and see.
And Amber Rudds letter seems responsible and could receive considerable support .
I think her characterisation of conservatives as practical, principled and realistic may be out of step with the current parliamentary party.
Not as many as you think hopefully. I hope I fit that description
When has Barnier ever said the backstop cannot include work permits and requires everlasting payments?
He has said the backstop requires NI to be in the Customs Union effectively and to have regulatory alignment and that will have to apply to the whole UK unless and until an acceptable technical solution can be foundagain
Wrong on every level. Barnier has said the backstop can only apply to NI (which is not possible). He has rejected an all-UK backstop specifically because he says it will lead to SM access via the backdoor - eg without payments and FOM. So if Barnier is now to accept an all UK backstop it is logical that he will insist on this.
A NI-only backstop will not happen because the DUP will no confidence your Government.
It is regulatory alignment he has said would be needed, he has not said anything about work permits not being permissible or extra payments beyond those committed to required
You are continuing to mix up all the issues just so that you can repeat your talking points.
Barnier has always ruled out an all-UK backstop because it would allow SM and CU access for the UK without accepting the four 'freedoms'. To 'solve' the NI border you need the UK to be in both the CU and SM - which is cherry picking if the UK do not adopt FOM. This week he is continuing to reject an all UK backstop for the same reason.
All of the above should be unacceptable to May, so if she sells out on it the DUP will vote her out.
It is you have inserted the FOM 'cherry picking' not Barnier.
There is a majority in the Commons for a whole UK Customs Union without the DUP, there is no majority in the Commons for No Deal.
If May comes back with No Deal the end result will either be we stay in the EEA or EUref2 or a general election
Again, that would seem to be the correct analysis. There is already a regulatory border on the Foyle, just as there is on the Tweed. The Irish Republic already has different laws to NI, and on very key matters too - eg abortion.
By their own choice!
Under this proposal the population in NI will have no representation whatsoever for their own laws. How can anyone view that as acceptable?
The Province voted to remain in the EU so this is closer to its people’s wishes than the alternative.
Not so much Brexit as mostly in the Far East, on trade concerns. Seasoned by the likelihood of interest rates going up in the USA, and anxiety about the Italian budget.
I knew it wasn't brexit but Italy is in rebellion against the EU and Trump and Braziil must be of concern
To reassure @Cyclefree I manage my time efficiently. As with baked goods, some threads can be prepared earlier, requiring only minor last minute effort to pull off a party piece.
Surely ‘showstopper’? Nice thread anyway - thanks, you seem to have exhausted all the best puns, though I was expecting some reference to tort(e).
The cabinet are to meet in the morning to discuss Brexit. Interesting
It would be great to believe that they would actually discuss Brexit. But based on past experience, May will simply repeat her usual scripted lines and everyone will agree with her and nothing will be discussed at all. The Cabinet are totally gutless. They all know that May's plan is doomed but they are all more interested in holding onto their offices and positioning themselves for the subsequent leadership campaign to actually take control of the situation.
Why do you not wait and see.
And Amber Rudds letter seems responsible and could receive considerable support .
I think her characterisation of conservatives as practical, principled and realistic may be out of step with the current parliamentary party.
Not as many as you think hopefully. I hope I fit that description
I hope so too - but elsewhere I think the reality is that eurofundamentslism has become such a shibboleth at constituency association level that the parliamentary party is packed with ideologues, and the practical principled party is a thing of the past.
When has Barnier ever said the backstop cannot include work permits and requires everlasting payments?
He has said the backstop requires NI to be in the Customs Union effectively and to have regulatory alignment and that will have to apply to the whole UK unless and until an acceptable technical solution can be foundagain
Wrong on every level. Barnier has said the backstop can only apply to NI (which is not possible). He has rejected an all-UK backstop specifically because he says it will lead to SM access via the backdoor - eg without payments and FOM. So if Barnier is now to accept an all UK backstop it is logical that he will insist on this.
A NI-only backstop will not happen because the DUP will no confidence your Government.
It is regulatory alignment he has said would be needed, he has not said anything about work permits not being permissible or extra payments beyond those committed to required
You are continuing to mix up all the issues just so that you can repeat your talking points.
Barnier has always ruled out an all-UK backstop because it would allow SM and CU access for the UK without accepting the four 'freedoms'. To 'solve' the NI border you need the UK to be in both the CU and SM - which is cherry picking if the UK do not adopt FOM. This week he is continuing to reject an all UK backstop for the same reason.
All of the above should be unacceptable to May, so if she sells out on it the DUP will vote her out.
It is you have inserted the FOM 'cherry picking' not Barnier.
There is a majority in the Commons for a whole UK Customs Union without the DUP, there is no majority in the Commons for No Deal.
If May comes back with No Deal the end result will either be we stay in the EEA or EUref2 or a general election
Again, that would seem to be the correct analysis. There is already a regulatory border on the Foyle, just as there is on the Tweed. The Irish Republic already has different laws to NI, and on very key matters too - eg abortion.
By their own choice!
Under this proposal the population in NI will have no representation whatsoever for their own laws. How can anyone view that as acceptable?
The Province voted to remain in the EU so this is closer to its people’s wishes than the alternative.
#stopcallingittheprovincethebordersdontmatch
(sorry: old grumble of mine. The borders of the province of Ulster do not match the borders of Northern Ireland)
When has Barnier ever said the backstop cannot include work permits and requires everlasting payments?
He has said the backstop requires NI to be in the Customs Union effectively and to have regulatory alignment and that will have to apply to the whole UK unless and until an acceptable technical solution can be foundagain
Wrong on every level. Barnier has said the backstop can only apply to NI (which is not possible). He has rejected an all-UK backstop specifically because he says it will lead to SM access via the backdoor - eg without payments and FOM. So if Barnier is now to accept an all UK backstop it is logical that he will insist on this.
A NI-only backstop will not happen because the DUP will no confidence your Government.
It is regulatory alignment he has said would be needed, he has not said anything about work permits not being permissible or extra payments beyond those committed to required
You are continuing to mix up all the issues just so that you can repeat your talking points.
Barnier has always ruled out an all-UK backstop because it would allow SM and CU access for the UK without accepting the four 'freedoms'. To 'solve' the NI border you need the UK to be in both the CU and SM - which is cherry picking if the UK do not adopt FOM. This week he is continuing to reject an all UK backstop for the same reason.
All of the above should be unacceptable to May, so if she sells out on it the DUP will vote her out.
It is you have inserted the FOM 'cherry picking' not Barnier.
There is a majority in the Commons for a whole UK Customs Union without the DUP, there is no majority in the Commons for No Deal.
If May comes back with No Deal the end result will either be we stay in the EEA or EUref2 or a general election
Again, that would seem to be the correct analysis. There is already a regulatory border on the Foyle, just as there is on the Tweed. The Irish Republic already has different laws to NI, and on very key matters too - eg abortion.
By their own choice!
Under this proposal the population in NI will have no representation whatsoever for their own laws. How can anyone view that as acceptable?
The Province voted to remain in the EU so this is closer to its people’s wishes than the alternative.
#stopcallingittheprovincethebordersdontmatch
(sorry: old grumble of mine. The borders of the province of Ulster do not match the borders of Northern Ireland)
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
Forgive me for returning to the recent polling in Scotland. It would appear that both Survation polls included 16/17 year olds in respect of Westminster election voting intentions. The likely effect will have flattered the SNP at the expense of both Labour and the Tories.
If you actually had a single poll showing No Deal preferred to Remain rather than zero you might be able to back up your No Deal bluster. As it is, you can't
You won't be laughing in November if No Deal, not only would there likely be riots in London, the £ and stock market would collapse through the floor, the SNP would be threatening Indyref2 asap etc
No way a government could survive that, a government of national unity may be the only way out
Riots tend to happen in warm months. No more riot months before Brexit.
When has Barnier ever said the backstop cannot include work permits and requires everlasting payments?
He has said the backstop requires NI to be in the Customs Union effectively and to have regulatory alignment and that will have to apply to the whole UK unless and until an acceptable technical solution can be foundagain
Wrong on every level. Barnier has said the backstop can only apply to NI (which is not possible). He has rejected an all-UK backstop specifically because he says it will lead to SM access via the backdoor - eg without payments and FOM. So if Barnier is now to accept an all UK backstop it is logical that he will insist on this.
A NI-only backstop will not happen because the DUP will no confidence your Government.
It is regulatory alignment he has said would be needed, he has not said anything about work permits not being permissible or extra payments beyond those committed to required
You are continuing to mix up all the issues just so that you can repeat your talking points.
Barnier has always ruled out an all-UK backstop because it would allow SM and CU access for the UK without accepting the four 'freedoms'. To 'solve' the NI border you need the UK to be in both the CU and SM - which is cherry picking if the UK do not adopt FOM. This week he is continuing to reject an all UK backstop for the same reason.
On a separate matter, the NI-only backstop, he wants NI to have regulatory alignment with the EU (eg in the SM) and for NI to be in the CU - creating both a regulatory and customs border in the Irish Sea. His part solution is that the whole UK remain in the CU, which would mean that there would be no need for a customs border in the Irish Sea but you would still need a regulatory border.
All of the above should be unacceptable to May, so if she sells out on it the DUP will vote her out.
It is you have inserted the FOM 'cherry picking' not Barnier.
There is a majority in the Commons for a whole UK Customs Union without the DUP, there is no majority in the Commons for No Deal.
If May comes back with No Deal the end result will either be we stay in the EEA or EUref2 or a general election
Again, that would seem to be the correct analysis. There is already a regulatory border on the Foyle, just as there is on the Tweed. The Irish Republic already has different laws to NI, and on very key matters too - eg abortion.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
The Bogside is in NI and Ulster, yet parts of Ulster are not in NI.
The Foyle was never a provincial boundary - Ulster is on both sides of the river. It only became a border along parts of its route following partition, the Irish Republic section of Ulster becoming separated from the six counties.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
The Crown Estates and tourism revenue means they more than pay for themselves
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Monarchism = Socialism!
* Jobs for life = Socialism! * Hereditary principle = Socialism! (eg. Kims in North Korea!) * Pomp and circumstance = Socialism! (eg. North Korean parades - again!)
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
The debt is ginormous, the deficit is still greater than zero, and you made Boris Johnson Foreign Secretary instead of a gimp.
The National Debt remains lower in GDP terms than was the case under William Pitt and Lord Liverpool.
Both of whom came to power either during or very shortly after significant wars, and the former of whom had to deal with the problem of massive corruption among the civil servants of the day.
I'm not sure saying that we're slightly better off than we were after the American Revolution or the Napoleonic Ward is a helpful comment, a bod yn onest.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
Her wedding hat at Prince Williams wedding alone provided billions of pounds worth of amusement to the Great British Public.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Monarchism = Socialism!
* Jobs for life = Socialism! * Hereditary principle = Socialism! (eg. Kims in North Korea!) * Pomp and circumstance = Socialism! (eg. North Korean parades - again!)
Rubbish. Almost all Conservative parties in Europe started as being pro monarchy and the landed classes, it was the Liberal parties which began as pro free trade and the Socialist parties as anti capitalist.
It was the Bolsheviks who founded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who of course executed the Romanovs
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Your Majesty!
I had no idea you were a good Muslim boy...
As one of my friend's put it a while 'You're as much a good Muslim boy as you are working class'.
I'm shocked, Your Majesty. All that education and you still can't put an apostrophe in the right place...
More seriously, the actual wedding seems to be being paid for by the Duchy of Lancaster. The problem is we have to pick up the security costs. But then, we have to do that even when Trump and Juncker visit. Or for when Jeremy Corbyn speaks.
So I'm not sure your point is a valid one in this case.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Monarchism = Socialism!
* Jobs for life = Socialism! * Hereditary principle = Socialism! (eg. Kims in North Korea!) * Pomp and circumstance = Socialism! (eg. North Korean parades - again!)
Rubbish. Almost all Conservative parties in Europe started as being pro monarchy and the landed classes, it was the Liberal parties which began as pro free trade and the Socialist parties as anti capitalist.
It was the Bolsheviks who founded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who of course executed the Romanovs
If I were feeling malicious I would point out that technically it was the Urals Soviet, who were in alliance with the Bolsheviks, who assassinated the Romanovs.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
At one time I was quite a republican but over the years I have mellowed a little and much admire the Queen
However, I do not think the public purse should be abused by the royals but it was pointed out this morning that wherever she married she would be a top terrorist target and security would be required.
I did hear some comments that the business the royal wedding will bring to Windsor and the huge media interest will generate far more for the UK than the cost of the security.
In general though, apart from the Queen, William and Harry, public money should not be taken for granted by the royal household
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Your Majesty!
I had no idea you were a good Muslim boy...
As one of my friend's put it a while 'You're as much a good Muslim boy as you are working class'.
I'm shocked, Your Majesty. All that education and you still can't put an apostrophe in the right place...
More seriously, the actual wedding seems to be being paid for by the Duchy of Lancaster. The problem is we have to pick up the security costs. But then, we have to do that even when Trump and Juncker visit. Or for when Jeremy Corbyn speaks.
So I'm not sure your point is a valid one in this case.
I'm blaming auto-correct plus I haven't fully adjusted to my new phone and its massive screen.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
Her wedding hat at Prince Williams wedding alone provided billions of pounds worth of amusement to the Great British Public.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Monarchism = Socialism!
* Jobs for life = Socialism! * Hereditary principle = Socialism! (eg. Kims in North Korea!) * Pomp and circumstance = Socialism! (eg. North Korean parades - again!)
Rubbish. Almost all Conservative parties in Europe started as being pro monarchy and the landed classes, it was the Liberal parties which began as pro free trade and the Socialist parties as anti capitalist.
It was the Bolsheviks who founded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who of course executed the Romanovs
Riots tend to happen in warm months. No more riot months before Brexit.
Poll tax riots happened in March?
Oh yes, the 31st. That's eerily close to the date of Brexit and about when people will start to get desperate if a panic empties the supermarket shelves.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
At one time I was quite a republican but over the years I have mellowed a little and much admire the Queen
However, I do not think the public purse should be abused by the royals but it was pointed out this morning that wherever she married she would be a top terrorist target and security would be required.
I did hear some comments that the business the royal wedding will bring to Windsor and the huge media interest will generate far more for the UK than the cost of the security.
In general though, apart from the Queen, William and Harry, public money should not be taken for granted by the royal household
When has Barnier ever said the backstop cannot include work permits and requires everlasting payments?
He has said the backstop requires NI to be in the Customs Union effectively and to have regulatory alignment and that will have to apply to the whole UK unless and until an acceptable technical solution can be foundagain
Wrong on every level. Barnier has said the backstop can only apply to NI (which is not possible). He has rejected an all-UK backstop specifically because he says it will lead to SM access via the backdoor - eg without payments and FOM. So if Barnier is now to accept an all UK backstop it is logical that he will insist on this.
A NI-only backstop will not happen because the DUP will no confidence your Government.
It is regulatory alignment he has said would be needed, he has not said anything about work permits not being permissible or extra payments beyond those committed to required
You are continuing to mix up all the issues just so that you can repeat your talking points.
Barnier has always ruled out an all-UK backstop because it would allow SM and CU access for the UK without accepting the four 'freedoms'. To 'solve' the NI border you need the UK to be in both the CU and SM - which is cherry picking if the UK do not adopt FOM. This week he is continuing to reject an all UK backstop for the same reason.
All of the above should be unacceptable to May, so if she sells out on it the DUP will vote her out.
It is you have inserted the FOM 'cherry picking' not Barnier.
There is a majority in the Commons for a whole UK Customs Union without the DUP, there is no majority in the Commons for No Deal.
If May comes back with No Deal the end result will either be we stay in the EEA or EUref2 or a general election
Again, that would seem to be the correct analysis. There is already a regulatory border on the Foyle, just as there is on the Tweed. The Irish Republic already has different laws to NI, and on very key matters too - eg abortion.
By their own choice!
Under this proposal the population in NI will have no representation whatsoever for their own laws. How can anyone view that as acceptable?
The Province voted to remain in the EU so this is closer to its people’s wishes than the alternative.
No the province voted for the UK to remain in the EU. They didn't vote to leave the UK, lose their MEPs, lose all representation in the European Council, have no votes on European laws but still be subjugated to them.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
Her wedding hat at Prince Williams wedding alone provided billions of pounds worth of amusement to the Great British Public.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
At one time I was quite a republican but over the years I have mellowed a little and much admire the Queen
However, I do not think the public purse should be abused by the royals but it was pointed out this morning that wherever she married she would be a top terrorist target and security would be required.
I did hear some comments that the business the royal wedding will bring to Windsor and the huge media interest will generate far more for the UK than the cost of the security.
In general though, apart from the Queen, William and Harry, public money should not be taken for granted by the royal household
Not Charles?
No - Charles is not someone I have great respect for
I didn’t even know there was a royal wedding this week under Eagles mentioned it. These royals are bloody lucky with the weather. Harry gets hitched in May under gin clear skies. This lass gets hitched in October, and it’s forecast to be 20c.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
Her wedding hat at Prince Williams wedding alone provided billions of pounds worth of amusement to the Great British Public.
I didn’t even know there was a royal wedding this week under Eagles mentioned it. These royals are bloody lucky with the weather. Harry gets hitched in May under gin clear skies. This lass gets hitched in October, and it’s forecast to be 20c.
My understanding is that the weather on friday is going to be dreadful but maybe warm
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Monarchism = Socialism!
* Jobs for life = Socialism! * Hereditary principle = Socialism! (eg. Kims in North Korea!) * Pomp and circumstance = Socialism! (eg. North Korean parades - again!)
Rubbish. Almost all Conservative parties in Europe started as being pro monarchy and the landed classes, it was the Liberal parties which began as pro free trade and the Socialist parties as anti capitalist.
It was the Bolsheviks who founded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who of course executed the Romanovs
"Jobs for a life" is a key socialist principle!
By the way: The USA is NOT a monarchy.
What is the difference between Tsarism and Communism?
Under Tsarism, the succession goes from father to son.
Under Communism it goes from grandfather to grandfather.
(In Russian this is a pun: дед can mean 'grandfather' or 'old man.')
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
At one time I was quite a republican but over the years I have mellowed a little and much admire the Queen
However, I do not think the public purse should be abused by the royals but it was pointed out this morning that wherever she married she would be a top terrorist target and security would be required.
I did hear some comments that the business the royal wedding will bring to Windsor and the huge media interest will generate far more for the UK than the cost of the security.
In general though, apart from the Queen, William and Harry, public money should not be taken for granted by the royal household
Not Charles?
No - Charles is not someone I have great respect for
That's not how monarchy works. It is by succession, whether the recipient deserves it or not.
Personally, I am fine with Charles despite his flaws. The more I see of politicians, the more that I want a non party political head of state.
If you actually had a single poll showing No Deal preferred to Remain rather than zero you might be able to back up your No Deal bluster. As it is, you can't
There is not a choice between No Deal and Remain. There is a choice between May's deal (if she can get one) and No Deal. May's deal will not pass Parliament. Your fantasies about a Government lead by Vince Cable are very entertaining but no substitute for reality.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
At one time I was quite a republican but over the years I have mellowed a little and much admire the Queen
However, I do not think the public purse should be abused by the royals but it was pointed out this morning that wherever she married she would be a top terrorist target and security would be required.
I did hear some comments that the business the royal wedding will bring to Windsor and the huge media interest will generate far more for the UK than the cost of the security.
In general though, apart from the Queen, William and Harry, public money should not be taken for granted by the royal household
Not Charles?
No - Charles is not someone I have great respect for
That's not how monarchy works. It is by succession, whether the recipient deserves it or not.
Personally, I am fine with Charles despite his flaws. The more I see of politicians, the more that I want a non party political head of state.
I do know that you know. But it does not stop me disliking him
[after losing the simulated Tory majority in 2017]
THERESA: Any suggestions, Admiral? TSE: Prayer, Mrs May. The EU Commission don't take prisoners. Lights! Well, Mrs May, are you going to stay with the sinking ship? THERESA: Permission to speak candidly, sir? TSE: Granted. THERESA: I don't believe this was a fair test of my Prime Ministerial abilities. TSE: And why not? THERESA: Because ...there was no way to win. TSE: A no-win situation is a possibility every Prime Minister may face. Has that never occurred to you? THERESA: No sir. It has not. TSE: How we deal with Brexit is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say? THERESA: As I indicated, Admiral, that thought had not occurred to me. TSE: Well, now you have something new to think about. Carry on.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
At one time I was quite a republican but over the years I have mellowed a little and much admire the Queen
However, I do not think the public purse should be abused by the royals but it was pointed out this morning that wherever she married she would be a top terrorist target and security would be required.
I did hear some comments that the business the royal wedding will bring to Windsor and the huge media interest will generate far more for the UK than the cost of the security.
In general though, apart from the Queen, William and Harry, public money should not be taken for granted by the royal household
Not Charles?
No - Charles is not someone I have great respect for
Which is why I am not a Monarchist, despite my great admiration and affection for HM Queen. A Monarchist does not have the choice to not respect whomsoever the holder of the office happens to be. Edit. @Foxy got there first.
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Monarchism = Socialism!
* Jobs for life = Socialism! * Hereditary principle = Socialism! (eg. Kims in North Korea!) * Pomp and circumstance = Socialism! (eg. North Korean parades - again!)
Rubbish. Almost all Conservative parties in Europe started as being pro monarchy and the landed classes, it was the Liberal parties which began as pro free trade and the Socialist parties as anti capitalist.
It was the Bolsheviks who founded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who of course executed the Romanovs
"Jobs for a life" is a key socialist principle!
By the way: The USA is NOT a monarchy.
The US Democratic Party is a liberal party not a conservative party and whether the GOP is conservative is debatable though it does take a socially conservative line, believes in strong defence and under Trump believes more in tariffs than liberal free trade
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Monarchism = Socialism!
* Jobs for life = Socialism! * Hereditary principle = Socialism! (eg. Kims in North Korea!) * Pomp and circumstance = Socialism! (eg. North Korean parades - again!)
Rubbish. Almost all Conservative parties in Europe started as being pro monarchy and the landed classes, it was the Liberal parties which began as pro free trade and the Socialist parties as anti capitalist.
It was the Bolsheviks who founded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who of course executed the Romanovs
"Jobs for a life" is a key socialist principle!
By the way: The USA is NOT a monarchy.
The US Democratic Party is a liberal party not a conservative party and whether the GOP is conservative is debatable though it does take a socially conservative line, believes in strong defence and under Trump believes more in tariffs thsn liberal free trade
Can anyone explain why I'm paying for another scrounger's wedding?
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Are you sure you're a Conservative?
Like all good Conservatives I believe in financial discipline, democracy, and a meritocracy.
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
I think you mean 'Like all good Orange Book Liberals I believe in financial discipline, democracy and a meritocracy.'
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
So she's returned a fraction of the money her family have leached away from the hard working tax payers?
Big whoop.
At one time I was quite a republican but over the years I have mellowed a little and much admire the Queen
However, I do not think the public purse should be abused by the royals but it was pointed out this morning that wherever she married she would be a top terrorist target and security would be required.
I did hear some comments that the business the royal wedding will bring to Windsor and the huge media interest will generate far more for the UK than the cost of the security.
In general though, apart from the Queen, William and Harry, public money should not be taken for granted by the royal household
Not Charles?
No - Charles is not someone I have great respect for
That's not how monarchy works. It is by succession, whether the recipient deserves it or not.
Personally, I am fine with Charles despite his flaws. The more I see of politicians, the more that I want a non party political head of state.
I do know that you know. But it does not stop me disliking him
There is a longstanding British tradition of disliking the incumbent, but still supporting the institution, royalty included.
If you actually had a single poll showing No Deal preferred to Remain rather than zero you might be able to back up your No Deal bluster. As it is, you can't
There is not a choice between No Deal and Remain. There is a choice between May's deal (if she can get one) and No Deal. May's deal will not pass Parliament. Your fantasies about a Government lead by Vince Cable are very entertaining but no substitute for reality.
There is a choice between No Deal and Remain before the end of March 2019 actually as Brexit is not due to come into force until then.
The only viable and sustainable Brexits are a Norway or Canada style Brexit, No Deal WTO terms Brexit is unsustainable especially as it lacks public support
Comments
Seems very poor odds if you ask me.
Can't we spend that money on the NHS instead?
Why doesn't the benefit cap apply to the Royal Family?
Premature launch/detonation might be an issue for a man of his age.
Wasn’t that the Selfridges sale?
Sure, though it won't get far.
Don't be silly.
Under this proposal the population in NI will have no representation whatsoever for their own laws. How can anyone view that as acceptable?
Granted Northern Ireland is more turd in the toilet than jewel of the crown but still.
(sorry: old grumble of mine. The borders of the province of Ulster do not match the borders of Northern Ireland)
A unelected Head of State with assorted scroungers is an obscenity.
Fair point about the terminology - apologies
Plus to be fair to Eugenie she gas raised a lot of money for the NHS and Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital where she was treated for Scoliosis as I was
It would appear that both Survation polls included 16/17 year olds in respect of Westminster election voting intentions. The likely effect will have flattered the SNP at the expense of both Labour and the Tories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ulster_locator_map.svg
Big whoop.
The Bogside is in NI and Ulster, yet parts of Ulster are not in NI.
The Foyle was never a provincial boundary - Ulster is on both sides of the river. It only became a border along parts of its route following partition, the Irish Republic section of Ulster becoming separated from the six counties.
I had no idea you were a good Muslim boy...
* Jobs for life = Socialism!
* Hereditary principle = Socialism! (eg. Kims in North Korea!)
* Pomp and circumstance = Socialism! (eg. North Korean parades - again!)
I'm not sure saying that we're slightly better off than we were after the American Revolution or the Napoleonic Ward is a helpful comment, a bod yn onest.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/fashion/celebrity/a22650268/princess-beatrice-princess-eugenie-cried-royal-wedding-hat-outfit-backlash/
It was the Bolsheviks who founded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who of course executed the Romanovs
More seriously, the actual wedding seems to be being paid for by the Duchy of Lancaster. The problem is we have to pick up the security costs. But then, we have to do that even when Trump and Juncker visit. Or for when Jeremy Corbyn speaks.
So I'm not sure your point is a valid one in this case.
However, I do not think the public purse should be abused by the royals but it was pointed out this morning that wherever she married she would be a top terrorist target and security would be required.
I did hear some comments that the business the royal wedding will bring to Windsor and the huge media interest will generate far more for the UK than the cost of the security.
In general though, apart from the Queen, William and Harry, public money should not be taken for granted by the royal household
By the way: The USA is NOT a monarchy.
Clearly I know nothing about political riots.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1050121892533800960
Under Tsarism, the succession goes from father to son.
Under Communism it goes from grandfather to grandfather.
(In Russian this is a pun: дед can mean 'grandfather' or 'old man.')
Come on Arlene.
Personally, I am fine with Charles despite his flaws. The more I see of politicians, the more that I want a non party political head of state.
https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1050107754600222720
THERESA: Any suggestions, Admiral?
TSE: Prayer, Mrs May. The EU Commission don't take prisoners. Lights! Well, Mrs May, are you going to stay with the sinking ship?
THERESA: Permission to speak candidly, sir?
TSE: Granted.
THERESA: I don't believe this was a fair test of my Prime Ministerial abilities.
TSE: And why not?
THERESA: Because ...there was no way to win.
TSE: A no-win situation is a possibility every Prime Minister may face. Has that never occurred to you?
THERESA: No sir. It has not.
TSE: How we deal with Brexit is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?
THERESA: As I indicated, Admiral, that thought had not occurred to me.
TSE: Well, now you have something new to think about. Carry on.
Edit. @Foxy got there first.
I'll get my dressing gown. Have a good evening.
The ERG have been running since 2015 at least; and forced concessions every time they’ve tried.
What have the Remainers achieved, apart from giving succour to Barnier, Juncker et al?
I think I preferred the original version.
Monarchy = Socialism!
The only viable and sustainable Brexits are a Norway or Canada style Brexit, No Deal WTO terms Brexit is unsustainable especially as it lacks public support