and Ferrari and Farage and the guy who used to do the drivetime show but has been relegated by Eddie Mair
Yeah, but you watch Cathy Newman and listen to James O'Brien. Are you saying you get your facts from Nigel Farage then? Put the shovel down and stop digging, you plank.
from the Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ts-to-reduce-strain-of-ageing-population.html
you see throwing insults around just proves you have lost the debate I listen to many different points of view and make my own mind up.
Yeah, James O'Brien. Insults? From the one who started his posts this evening talking about me pining for Empire and then said others wanted to go back to the 50's. "You couldn't make it up: its as if the days of empire are still ingrained in some peoples psyche and all sense of fairness and logic has been abandoned." Seriously, put your crayons away and go to bed.
Away from Ukraine, Spain and France put torpedoes into HMS May's hull: Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez said on Sunday: "Really, regarding the departure of the United Kingdom, we are all losing, and it's especially the United Kingdom who is losing, but regarding Gibraltar, Spain wins. And Europe wins." But more problematic was the French president, who again at the very end of a summit that had gone smoothly, delivered an insight into French thinking that will not go down well in an already highly sceptical Commons. "If we have an agreement we shall defend access to British waters as being part of the indispensable balance - this has been acknowledged in EU27 statement," he said before being asked by British journalists what "leverage" he thought would be able to deliver continued EU/French access to UK fishing waters post Brexit. And the clear implication of his answer was that the ability to veto UK exit from an already unpopular customs union backstop gives France leverage over fishing rights. Completely unacceptable trap that May and Robbins have walked into. I'm starting to consider that a new leader and talking seriously that we're heading for a WTO exit is the best route and then let's see if the EU blinks.
I've long said that "May's deal" had the hallmarks of a strategy to achieve either 1. a "blame free" Brexit on WTO terms or 2. was a gambit to secure UK's re-admittance to the EU as a full member in the short to medium term. To be fair, i also said at the time that I couldnt be sure which it was. Macro and Sanchez seem hell bent on picking Option No1 for us.
Or: It could be that the EU is so certain of Option No2, they cannot resist the temptation to rub the UK's nose in its own mess at every stage.
More novice questions; Why do we have to have a deal ? What's so bad about just leaving with no deal ?
Leaving with no deal has always been our best option, no deal, no payouts - just what we voted for: to leave
It’s not the 50’s though, its as little as 30 years ago. Here’s the choice: parent sell house, pay all cash to home at over a grand a week. Or, pool cash, buy bigger house, live together. It’s only the white communities that don’t do that here in the UK.
This is the plan. May appears to have sold us out entirely,. Her fear of being the prime minister who took us out of the EU is greater than her need to do the right thing: just exit. And is just simply lying. Do they still use The Tower?!
There are two levels to your question. The most important level is that the argument over a "deal" is being forced upon us in order to push the Remain agenda. It is a wedge to ensure that we proceed with BrRINO and not Brexit. It is pure (or rather, impure) politicking. The superficial issue is that a "good deal" will mitigate whatever financial pain we suffer in the short term and that WTO will not. Deal and no deal is the Establishment's way of reframing the Brexit question into something they can argue successfully, ie the economic issues. It is a way of sidestepping the true reasons why most Leavers and the majority of the electorate chose Brexit. Bear in mind that a "good deal" was never remotely possible. The EUs existence relies entirely upon a Membership Good, Non- Membership Bad narrative. Rewarding the UK with a deal acceptable to the UK was never going to happen. Discussion of a good deal was pure fantasy and theatre. Many Brexiteers knew this from day one and thus were prepared for WTO - and demanded that the UK government prepare for such. Alas, the Government knew better ...
There is a supposition that leaving the EU without a deal means a hiatus in trade whilst the UK scrambles for trade deals with other nations. This isn't true, as we already have the framework for trade under WTO. There may be short term economic hurt during this adjustment period and whilst we negotiate new deals. There is NOTHING to say that these new deals will not in the medium and long term benefit us compared to what we had in the EU. Worst case scenario - short painful adjustment period, permanently free of EU manipulation of our economy, military, spending,politics, society, immigration, laws and all the little ways in which we pay for the "privilege" of membership (cough £165m/£350m contribution cough).
Goat, I hate typing on this hobbit-sized phone. NB I cannot remember the exact size of the weekly bung we are obliged to pay the EU.
My thoughts were, why would the EU give us a 'good deal' surely that would be a 'bad deal' for them ? Just leaving seems the obvious choice, even if it takes a while for trade to adjust. Has anyone got any reason why we should go for a good deal ? (other than it being better / easier for the politicians)
Wouldn't it have been nice if that sort of info (not the phone bit) had been nice and clearly laid out before the referendum ? something like We give the EU £100 But we get £80 back and they let us do stuff.
I reckon the PM is doing as she's told. Hard to believe she actually thinks this is the right deal for the UK
We did get a rebate but the money was earmarked for purposes determined by the EU. It was never "our" money. You can either like this or hate it, of course.
