EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position
UK: here you go...
EU: go f*ck yourself
(rinse & repeat)
No it’s more like
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position.
UK: We’d like to keep these benefits of membership without any of the obligations
EU: Er, aren’t you listening? We’ve already told you that you can’t have that. It would undermine the whole point of membership.
(rinse & repeat)
"We’d like to keep these benefits of membership without any of the obligations" s of course the EU characterisation of the UK's position, and not a neutral one.
However, that is beside the point. The EU have heard many times what the UK's position is, but they disingenuously imply they are still waiting to hear it. What they mean is "we are yet to hear a position from the UK we can accept" which is entirely different.
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position
UK: here you go...
EU: go f*ck yourself
(rinse & repeat)
No it’s more like
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position.
UK: We’d like to keep these benefits of membership without any of the obligations
EU: Er, aren’t you listening? We’ve already told you that you can’t have that. It would undermine the whole point of membership.
(rinse & repeat)
No. It isn’t at all. The UK is proposing a sensible balance of costs/commitments/obligations in certain areas (goods) and detachment in others (services) on a quid pro quo basis. The EU is pushing for ideological fundamentalism on an all or nothing approach, and is shamelessly using NI (a very delicate political situation) as a lever to do this.
I think it’s disgusting and I’m surprised you don’t too.
How depressing it is to see you supporting the aggressive provocations of a foreign power rather than your own country.
Jeez. It's only a trade deal calm down. If we're so vexed about it let's just leave, right? Fuck 'em.
Surely someone has to resign today. If we get the usual 'Cabinet now more unified and content than they've been in decades' stuff only for Boris to recommence his sniping within days, then I'll be peeved.
Indeed. Even if it is months, it is beyond parody for one side or the other to stay on only to moan about the direction later.
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Written constitutions are for those without imagination or an interest in history.
GB has survived for over 300 years, and with a Union of Crowns for over 100 years more.
Come back with your Eurobabble when it has survived longer than that.
"GB has survived" - that's an interesting choice of words. I presume on that basis the Northern Ireland backstop will be no sacrifice at all in order to achieve Brexit?
It’s perfectly obvious that NI needs a special status with both the EU and UK that both the EU and UK can recognise.
NI already has a separate status - the State of Spongers ! Give it to Ireland where it belongs. Just look at the map!
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Written constitutions are for those without imagination or an interest in history.
GB has survived for over 300 years, and with a Union of Crowns for over 100 years more.
Come back with your Eurobabble when it has survived longer than that.
"GB has survived" - that's an interesting choice of words. I presume on that basis the Northern Ireland backstop will be no sacrifice at all in order to achieve Brexit?
It’s perfectly obvious that NI needs a special status with both the EU and UK that both the EU and UK can recognise.
With a customs border where?
I think both the UK and EU need to travel on that one.
NI already has a special status in so many ways.
Which is avoiding the question. Infrastructure and checks have been categorically ruled out on the land border, so there's only one place where it can happen if the rest of the UK leaves the single market and customs union.
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Written constitutions are for those without imagination or an interest in history.
GB has survived for over 300 years, and with a Union of Crowns for over 100 years more.
Come back with your Eurobabble when it has survived longer than that.
"GB has survived" - that's an interesting choice of words. I presume on that basis the Northern Ireland backstop will be no sacrifice at all in order to achieve Brexit?
It’s perfectly obvious that NI needs a special status with both the EU and UK that both the EU and UK can recognise.
With a customs border where?
I think both the UK and EU need to travel on that one.
NI already has a special status in so many ways.
Which is avoiding the question. Infrastructure and checks have been categorically ruled out on the land border, so there's only one place where it can happen if the rest of the UK leaves the single market and customs union.
And they’ve been categorically ruled out within the UK single market as well.
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Written constitutions are for those without imagination or an interest in history.
GB has survived for over 300 years, and with a Union of Crowns for over 100 years more.
Come back with your Eurobabble when it has survived longer than that.
"GB has survived" - that's an interesting choice of words. I presume on that basis the Northern Ireland backstop will be no sacrifice at all in order to achieve Brexit?
It’s perfectly obvious that NI needs a special status with both the EU and UK that both the EU and UK can recognise.
NI already has a separate status - the State of Spongers ! Give it to Ireland where it belongs. Just look at the map!
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Written constitutions are for those without imagination or an interest in history.
GB has survived for over 300 years, and with a Union of Crowns for over 100 years more.
Come back with your Eurobabble when it has survived longer than that.
"GB has survived" - that's an interesting choice of words. I presume on that basis the Northern Ireland backstop will be no sacrifice at all in order to achieve Brexit?
It’s perfectly obvious that NI needs a special status with both the EU and UK that both the EU and UK can recognise.
With a customs border where?
I think both the UK and EU need to travel on that one.
NI already has a special status in so many ways.
Which is avoiding the question. Infrastructure and checks have been categorically ruled out on the land border, so there's only one place where it can happen if the rest of the UK leaves the single market and customs union.
And they’ve been categorically ruled out within the UK single market as well.
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position
UK: here you go...
EU: go f*ck yourself
(rinse & repeat)
No it’s more like
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position.
UK: We’d like to keep these benefits of membership without any of the obligations
EU: Er, aren’t you listening? We’ve already told you that you can’t have that. It would undermine the whole point of membership.
(rinse & repeat)
No. It isn’t at all. The UK is proposing a sensible balance of costs/commitments/obligations in certain areas (goods) and detachment in others (services) on a quid pro quo basis. The EU is pushing for ideological fundamentalism on an all or nothing approach, and is shamelessly using NI (a very delicate political situation) as a lever to do this.
I think it’s disgusting and I’m surprised you don’t too.
How depressing it is to see you supporting the aggressive provocations of a foreign power rather than your own country.
Jeez. It's only a trade deal calm down. If we're so vexed about it let's just leave, right? Fuck 'em.
Im convinced that is May's plan. She can say she has acted as reasonably as possible in the negotiations and it is the EU's fault that no deal could be agreed and that they are not respecting the wishes of the British people
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position
UK: here you go...
EU: go f*ck yourself
(rinse & repeat)
No it’s more like
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position.
UK: We’d like to keep these benefits of membership without any of the obligations
EU: Er, aren’t you listening? We’ve already told you that you can’t have that. It would undermine the whole point of membership.
(rinse & repeat)
No. It isn’t at all. The UK is proposing a sensible balance of costs/commitments/obligations in certain areas (goods) and detachment in others (services) on a quid pro quo basis. The EU is pushing for ideological fundamentalism on an all or nothing approach, and is shamelessly using NI (a very delicate political situation) as a lever to do this.
I think it’s disgusting and I’m surprised you don’t too.
How depressing it is to see you supporting the aggressive provocations of a foreign power rather than your own country.
Jeez. It's only a trade deal calm down. If we're so vexed about it let's just leave, right? Fuck 'em.
We have quite sophisticated integrated supply chains. A no deal would totally screw them up. But im not keen on essentially being in the single market for goods but not for services. We export mostly services and import mostly goods.
It's all right Barnier implying that these things are no go, but what we are going to get from this is an agreed position that May can present. Here it is. This is a deal we can accept or we can do the Canada thing. I can deliver nothing else, think it over. Leet us know if you want to keep selling us cars.
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Written constitutions are for those without imagination or an interest in history.
GB has survived for over 300 years, and with a Union of Crowns for over 100 years more.
Come back with your Eurobabble when it has survived longer than that.
"GB has survived" - that's an interesting choice of words. I presume on that basis the Northern Ireland backstop will be no sacrifice at all in order to achieve Brexit?
It’s perfectly obvious that NI needs a special status with both the EU and UK that both the EU and UK can recognise.
With a customs border where?
I think both the UK and EU need to travel on that one.
NI already has a special status in so many ways.
Which is avoiding the question. Infrastructure and checks have been categorically ruled out on the land border, so there's only one place where it can happen if the rest of the UK leaves the single market and customs union.
And they’ve been categorically ruled out within the UK single market as well.
So the only solution is a compromise.
Yep. EEA.
That's what Dan Hannan wanted all along. To be fair, he did not have a problem with FoM.
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position
UK: here you go...
EU: go f*ck yourself
(rinse & repeat)
No it’s more like
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position.
UK: We’d like to keep these benefits of membership without any of the obligations
EU: Er, aren’t you listening? We’ve already told you that you can’t have that. It would undermine the whole point of membership.
(rinse & repeat)
Except that isn't it, since if there were nothing for either side to gain in a negotiation because either you're on or you're out, then neither side would be discussing anything in the first place.
Clearly both sides believe some things can be had despite not being members, for a cost, they're just a million miles apart on what is up for grabs.
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Neither is the fundamental difference. The basis of law and the nature of the constitution are for nerds, academics and practitioners.
To the extent that there was any fundamental difference between the UK and other EU members that led to Brexit, it was about the popular conception of the nature and role of the nation-state.
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position
UK: here you go...
EU: go f*ck yourself
(rinse & repeat)
No it’s more like
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position.
UK: We’d like to keep these benefits of membership without any of the obligations
EU: Er, aren’t you listening? We’ve already told you that you can’t have that. It would undermine the whole point of membership.
(rinse & repeat)
No. It isn’t at all. The UK is proposing a sensible balance of costs/commitments/obligations in certain areas (goods) and detachment in others (services) on a quid pro quo basis. The EU is pushing for ideological fundamentalism on an all or nothing approach, and is shamelessly using NI (a very delicate political situation) as a lever to do this.
I think it’s disgusting and I’m surprised you don’t too.
How depressing it is to see you supporting the aggressive provocations of a foreign power rather than your own country.
Jeez. It's only a trade deal calm down. If we're so vexed about it let's just leave, right? Fuck 'em.
We have quite sophisticated integrated supply chains. A no deal would totally screw them up. But im not keen on essentially being in the single market for goods but not for services. We export mostly services and import mostly goods.
It's all right Barnier implying that these things are no go, but what we are going to get from this is an agreed position that May can present. Here it is. This is a deal we can accept or we can do the Canada thing. I can deliver nothing else, think it over. Leet us know if you want to keep selling us cars.
Or, re-invent the Bobby Ewing shower ! The whole thing never happened. It was just a bad nightmare.
They can't even call Uber. Boris could do with a walk to the station.
SeanT was telling us that a public footpaths runs right alongside Chequers ('Because this is England...'). Handy!
I vaguely recall going there on a demo - I think we were actually protesting Jacques Chirac, who was visiting, and his nuclear tests. If memory serves we got reasonably close on the public footpath, but not actually throwing things / heckling distance. The police were generally friendly about it although they took everyone's photos.
That was before the right to roam, so access may now be even better.
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Neither is the fundamental difference. The basis of law and the nature of the constitution are for nerds, academics and practitioners.
To the extent that there was any fundamental difference between the UK and other EU members that led to Brexit, it was about the popular conception of the nature and role of the nation-state.
They (their leaders) see their nation states as the source of conflict and war, while we see our nation state as the defender against war and conflict.
"The single market is our main economic public good. We will not damage it. We will not reverse what we achieved with the UK. We must find solutions that respect the integrity of the single market."
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Neither is the fundamental difference. The basis of law and the nature of the constitution are for nerds, academics and practitioners.
To the extent that there was any fundamental difference between the UK and other EU members that led to Brexit, it was about the popular conception of the nature and role of the nation-state.
That's related to my point. To the UK it's natural to think of itself as a nation state despite being a union of nations. It therefore perceives the ultimate goal of the EU to be a bigger version of itself in which the UK's position is comparable to Scotland's within the UK.
The way to fix is it to make England a nation state again which will end its sense of anxiety about being dissolved away.
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Neither is the fundamental difference. The basis of law and the nature of the constitution are for nerds, academics and practitioners.
To the extent that there was any fundamental difference between the UK and other EU members that led to Brexit, it was about the popular conception of the nature and role of the nation-state.
That's related to my point. To the UK it's natural to think of itself as a nation state despite being a union of nations. It therefore perceives the ultimate goal of the EU to be a bigger version of itself in which the UK's position is comparable to Scotland's within the UK.
The way to fix is it to make England a nation state again which will end its sense of anxiety about being dissolved away.
"The single market is our main economic public good. We will not damage it. We will not reverse what we achieved with the UK. We must find solutions that respect the integrity of the single market."
Barnier, today! So Chequers is a waste of time ?
More to the point, it's about domestic politics, not the actual negotation. The tightrope TMay has to walk is to be BINO enough to cause one of her enemies to flounce and call a leadership election, but not so BINO that she loses it.
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position
UK: here you go...
EU: go f*ck yourself
(rinse & repeat)
No it’s more like
EU: we are waiting for the UK to set out its position.
UK: We’d like to keep these benefits of membership without any of the obligations
EU: Er, aren’t you listening? We’ve already told you that you can’t have that. It would undermine the whole point of membership.
(rinse & repeat)
No. It isn’t at all. The UK is proposing a sensible balance of costs/commitments/obligations in certain areas (goods) and detachment in others (services) on a quid pro quo basis. The EU is pushing for ideological fundamentalism on an all or nothing approach, and is shamelessly using NI (a very delicate political situation) as a lever to do this.
I think it’s disgusting and I’m surprised you don’t too.
How depressing it is to see you supporting the aggressive provocations of a foreign power rather than your own country.
Jeez. It's only a trade deal calm down. If we're so vexed about it let's just leave, right? Fuck 'em.
Im convinced that is May's plan. She can say she has acted as reasonably as possible in the negotiations and it is the EU's fault that no deal could be agreed and that they are not respecting the wishes of the British people
Just over half of the British people (2 years ago).
"The single market is our main economic public good. We will not damage it. We will not reverse what we achieved with the UK. We must find solutions that respect the integrity of the single market."
Barnier, today! So Chequers is a waste of time ?
God Barnier or Suarez in an hour. What a choice: pity both can’t lose five nil on penalties.
"The single market is our main economic public good. We will not damage it. We will not reverse what we achieved with the UK. We must find solutions that respect the integrity of the single market."
Barnier, today! So Chequers is a waste of time ?
Yes! TMay attempting to kick the can down the road... Again!
"The long read The George Soros philosophy – and its fatal flaw
Unlike most of the billionaire class, George Soros is not an out-of-touch plutocrat, but a provocative thinker committed to progressive ideals – which is what makes his failures so telling.
They can't even call Uber. Boris could do with a walk to the station.
SeanT was telling us that a public footpaths runs right alongside Chequers ('Because this is England...'). Handy!
I wonder if you might have mistook SeanT for one of my anecdotes, when I was walking the Ridgeway past Chequers, decided to confuse a security camera by walking around its base, and was met by two 'local' women.
But a Downing Street spokeswoman said: "Our position on this is pretty clear. We owe a debt of gratitude to the soldiers and police officers who upheld the rule of law.
"We cannot countenance a a proposal where amnesties would be provided to terrorists."
The spat marks the latest bitter row between Number 10 and Mr Williamson, who has been pushing for a spending boost for the Armed Forces and last month angered Tory colleagues with a threat to bring down Mrs May over the issue.
More “the British have a nice car, how do they think that angle-grinder’s going to make it look better?”
The British have a nice car industry. It will look better in Slovakia...
A point which will surely not be missed by the Slovakians, when the time comes to vote on acceptance of whatever Brexit deal can be cobbled together.
usual guff
Nice of you to precise your posts like that.
well after a while you just get bored with prats who have never been in a car plant repeating PR drivel
I know several UK suppliers who have facilities in E Europe and they all say the same thing the labour situation in Visegrad 4 countries is extremely tight and getting labour, any labour is getting harder by the day. This is mostly because couuntries like Slovakia have the highest car output per head in the EU. There is little ability to cope with more output, wages are rising quickly and skilled people are in high demand.
They can't even call Uber. Boris could do with a walk to the station.
SeanT was telling us that a public footpaths runs right alongside Chequers ('Because this is England...'). Handy!
I wonder if you might have mistook SeanT for one of my anecdotes, when I was walking the Ridgeway past Chequers, decided to confuse a security camera by walking around its base, and was met by two 'local' women.
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Written constitutions are for those without imagination or an interest in history.
GB has survived for over 300 years, and with a Union of Crowns for over 100 years more.
Come back with your Eurobabble when it has survived longer than that.
Yes, if you want to ignore the whole thing with Ireland then it has.
And then there was that losing a rather large empire episode as well.
I am deeply, deeply disappointed. I have a skype meeting at 2:30. The football starts at 3:00.
No resignations yet!
If you haven't mastered doing about four things whilst on a skype call - watching the footy, playing a game, scanning pb.com updates on Who Has Walked Out - you really aren't getting the most out of using it.....
They can't even call Uber. Boris could do with a walk to the station.
SeanT was telling us that a public footpaths runs right alongside Chequers ('Because this is England...'). Handy!
I wonder if you might have mistook SeanT for one of my anecdotes, when I was walking the Ridgeway past Chequers, decided to confuse a security camera by walking around its base, and was met by two 'local' women.
"The single market is our main economic public good. We will not damage it. We will not reverse what we achieved with the UK. We must find solutions that respect the integrity of the single market."
Barnier, today! So Chequers is a waste of time ?
More to the point, it's about domestic politics, not the actual negotation. The tightrope TMay has to walk is to be BINO enough to cause one of her enemies to flounce and call a leadership election, but not so BINO that she loses it.
How exactly does one of her enemies "call a leadership election"?
The vision of the EU doesn’t fit with a common law jursidiction. This is the fundamental contradiction that led to Brexit.
If there's an inherent contradiction with the UK, it's not common law per se, but the fact that we are ourselves a union of nations without a written constitution.
Written constitutions are for those without imagination or an interest in history.
GB has survived for over 300 years, and with a Union of Crowns for over 100 years more.
Come back with your Eurobabble when it has survived longer than that.
"GB has survived" - that's an interesting choice of words. I presume on that basis the Northern Ireland backstop will be no sacrifice at all in order to achieve Brexit?
It’s perfectly obvious that NI needs a special status with both the EU and UK that both the EU and UK can recognise.
NI already has a separate status - the State of Spongers ! Give it to Ireland where it belongs. Just look at the map!
"The single market is our main economic public good. We will not damage it. We will not reverse what we achieved with the UK. We must find solutions that respect the integrity of the single market."
Barnier, today! So Chequers is a waste of time ?
More to the point, it's about domestic politics, not the actual negotation. The tightrope TMay has to walk is to be BINO enough to cause one of her enemies to flounce and call a leadership election, but not so BINO that she loses it.
How exactly does one of her enemies "call a leadership election"?
Saying, 'I want a leadership election, and people should put their letters in' I assume?
Pretty much, yes: of course "Britain's future depends on Brexit meaning Brexit", insofar as that fatuous phrase makes any sense whatsoever. Will Britain have a future with or without Brexit? Yes. Will that future be different depending whether a Moggian Hard Brexit is delivered, or otherwise? Yes. Thank you for that insight, Mr Mogg, whatever would we do without you.
Increasingly I'm finding "the future of the Conservatives" the more interesting half of the question. The present parliamentary Conservative party is a disgrace. I say "the present" because the Conservative party is a great institution with a storied history; I say "parliamentary" because my experience of Conservatives at country and district level (Oxfordshire and West Oxfordshire respectively, for what it's worth) is often exemplary. But the present Parliamentary Conservative party is incoherent, incompetent, and incapable of running the country. The sooner it implodes and new, more coherent parties emerge, the better for Britain.
They can't even call Uber. Boris could do with a walk to the station.
SeanT was telling us that a public footpaths runs right alongside Chequers ('Because this is England...'). Handy!
I wonder if you might have mistook SeanT for one of my anecdotes, when I was walking the Ridgeway past Chequers, decided to confuse a security camera by walking around its base, and was met by two 'local' women.
They can't even call Uber. Boris could do with a walk to the station.
SeanT was telling us that a public footpaths runs right alongside Chequers ('Because this is England...'). Handy!
I wonder if you might have mistook SeanT for one of my anecdotes, when I was walking the Ridgeway past Chequers, decided to confuse a security camera by walking around its base, and was met by two 'local' women.
Increasingly I'm finding "the future of the Conservatives" the more interesting half of the question. The present parliamentary Conservative party is a disgrace. I say "the present" because the Conservative party is a great institution with a storied history; I say "parliamentary" because my experience of Conservatives at country and district level (Oxfordshire and West Oxfordshire respectively, for what it's worth) is often exemplary. But the present Parliamentary Conservative party is incoherent, incompetent, and incapable of running the country. The sooner it implodes and new, more coherent parties emerge, the better for Britain.
Indeed. There will always be some form of centre-right party or bloc of parties to counterbalance Labour and the centre-left and the Conservatives came back from the disaster of 1997 (aided by the financial crash) even though it took 13 years.
I think the psychological impact of the period of Opposition has had a lingering effect. Principles such as lower taxes have been abandoned in favour of the economic populism of raising taxes to fund the NHS.
Too much of current Government thinking is through the prism of what will keep the Party popular rather than what is right and the fear of Corbyn notwithstanding, it's not enough to articulate a reason NOT to vote for another party, there has to be a positive reason for voting Conservative.
Comments
However, that is beside the point. The EU have heard many times what the UK's position is, but they disingenuously imply they are still waiting to hear it. What they mean is "we are yet to hear a position from the UK we can accept" which is entirely different.
So the only solution is a compromise.
OTOH, you could have a waft of resignations when England is playing tomorrow.
To anyone who soberly analyses the situation (rather than cheering the EU on) the EU’s tactics are obvious.
It's all right Barnier implying that these things are no go, but what we are going to get from this is an agreed position that May can present. Here it is. This is a deal we can accept or we can do the Canada thing. I can deliver nothing else, think it over. Leet us know if you want to keep selling us cars.
Clearly both sides believe some things can be had despite not being members, for a cost, they're just a million miles apart on what is up for grabs.
To the extent that there was any fundamental difference between the UK and other EU members that led to Brexit, it was about the popular conception of the nature and role of the nation-state.
https://twitter.com/Catholeft/status/1015170795696422912
That was before the right to roam, so access may now be even better.
Barnier, today! So Chequers is a waste of time ?
The way to fix is it to make England a nation state again which will end its sense of anxiety about being dissolved away.
Really
The George Soros philosophy – and its fatal flaw
Unlike most of the billionaire class, George Soros is not an out-of-touch plutocrat, but a provocative thinker committed to progressive ideals – which is what makes his failures so telling.
By Daniel Bessner"
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/06/the-george-soros-philosophy-and-its-fatal-flaw
http://www.britishwalks.org/walks/2002/204.php
That feels like a lifetime ago ...
And it's the Ridgeway National Trail, not just any old footpath.
No resignations yet!
"We cannot countenance a a proposal where amnesties would be provided to terrorists."
The spat marks the latest bitter row between Number 10 and Mr Williamson, who has been pushing for a spending boost for the Armed Forces and last month angered Tory colleagues with a threat to bring down Mrs May over the issue.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/defence/military-campaigns/news/96613/theresa-may-slaps-down-gavin-williamson-over-ira
I know several UK suppliers who have facilities in E Europe and they all say the same thing the labour situation in Visegrad 4 countries is extremely tight and getting labour, any labour is getting harder by the day. This is mostly because couuntries like Slovakia have the highest car output per head in the EU. There is little ability to cope with more output, wages are rising quickly and skilled people are in high demand.
does that help ?
Shall we agree to call off the whole thing ?
How many Cabinet members have ordered the taxi so far?
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1015221028476375041
Increasingly I'm finding "the future of the Conservatives" the more interesting half of the question. The present parliamentary Conservative party is a disgrace. I say "the present" because the Conservative party is a great institution with a storied history; I say "parliamentary" because my experience of Conservatives at country and district level (Oxfordshire and West Oxfordshire respectively, for what it's worth) is often exemplary. But the present Parliamentary Conservative party is incoherent, incompetent, and incapable of running the country. The sooner it implodes and new, more coherent parties emerge, the better for Britain.
I sometimes get the impression that our dear Sean is a little bit, you know, crazy.
Though I'm sure it's all an act.
I think the psychological impact of the period of Opposition has had a lingering effect. Principles such as lower taxes have been abandoned in favour of the economic populism of raising taxes to fund the NHS.
Too much of current Government thinking is through the prism of what will keep the Party popular rather than what is right and the fear of Corbyn notwithstanding, it's not enough to articulate a reason NOT to vote for another party, there has to be a positive reason for voting Conservative.
NEW THREAD