Maybe this thread should be "under the influence in the EU"
Indeed, if he'd been pissed, rather than in pain, it is almost impossible to imagine that his aides would have allowed him attend the later meeting in a wheelchair (or that the rumour mill would have been as quiet as it has - or even that the current US President would have said nothing).
Does that illness make people drunkenly pull ties and bitchslap people too?
Crazy what these conditions can do.
If he was drunkenly pulling ties and bitch-slapping people, do you think for one minute that any of his many critics (because, although the head of the EU Commission, he is not necessarily universally popular) would have kept quiet about it?
He stumbled, and had to be assisted by others to prevent him from falling - but, if it was because he was pissed, he would not have been let, on behalf of the EU, attend the meeting after the photocall.
Must have been a flare up of his illness. Using disabilities as an excuse for things like this is seriously offensive in my opinion.
And to be clear I'm not accusing you of deliberately doing this as it looks like you aren't aware of his past form, although I would suggest that you are likely to be more willing to be persuadef by outright lies than someone who views things a bit more cynically. After all, they seem to be on your side of the argument.
As pointed out above, I am 100% sure that if Farage was stumbling about at a photo call and blamed it on injuries from the plane crash, no one on here would give him the benefit of the doubt. I am sure of it.
I'm talking about this week, and the allegations made about him at the NATO meeting.
The specific issue is this week's allegation, not something from a few years ago. I would just say that this week's allegation falls into a pattern of, often online, claims that he is unfit to lead the Commission, that he is some of Nazi, while, at the same time, that he is Jewish. A cynic might ask who, or what group, is behind such claims, and why do they make them.
He has admitted that he is "fond of a drink", which I have always taken as meaning he is prone to drinking too much.
However, he is being portrayed this week like he is a second Boris Yeltsin, even the video you provide (which does have a loop feel about it) does not show him in that light.
Given your references to Nigel Farage, I get the impression that you think I like Jean Claude Juncker, when I'm not really bothered about him one way or the other. He would not have been my choice for Commission President if I'd had one, but, then again, I don't get a choice on Senior Civil Servants (or, being in Northern Ireland, Ministers) in the UK.
I resent your suggestion that I am, in some way, prepared to believe out right lies, because I lack a level of cynicism.
I am, in fact, massively cynical about everyone and everything, not just what I don't like. Having been a student of history, I know there's a lot to be cynical about (including anyone, even me, claiming to be objective), and, IMHO, the amount of things worthy of cynicism is increasing.
I do like the EU, because I have seen the good that it does first hand, but that does not mean that I believe everyone associated with it is a saint, or that everything it does is wonderful - it is, however, vastly superior to the alternatives.
I am equally cynical of news and social media, and very conscious of how the latter is being used to normalise far right ideologies, and I am particularly cynical of politicians seized by some form of Messianic fervour when campaigning to bring about "the will of the people" (always have been, always will be), because I think they are at best charlatans.
I'm not interested in any claims about him being a Nazi, or anything else other than him being drunk to be honest with you. I hope you're not trying to draw a parallel between my claim that he is just drunk with claims he is a nazi, because that would be a mistake. As would be paying too much attention to weird websites where they claim such things.
I hold no feelings for him either way, like I said, I very much dislike people blaming mistskes on disability.
I am not claiming you lack cynicism, just that you are willfully ignorant and are apparently incapable of objectivity because of his politics. The fact you are discrediting that video because of the way it was edited shows this. You are arguing the semantics of someone slapping someone else (several people actually) in the face.
Like you said, you are very cynical about all of the right wing nonsense being spread on social media, as am I, do you have any concerns about the left by any chance? Go on, show me how objective you can be. I dare you.
As a side note, I keep telling you people, it's not black and white. It's YES (here is my argument) BUT (here is the counter argument) SO (on balance, this is what I believe). Its a constant "Yes" with no attention given to the counter argument. Opinions have become so binary, that is when things are dangerous. Journalism is going that way too. You are all just seeking things to validify your own opinion, not to actually look at things objectively. Rant over :-)
You are misunderstanding what I have been arguing about.
I am talking about this week, at a NATO event. At this event, he stumbled, certain parties seek to claim he was pissed and my contention is simply that, if that was the reason, "sources" within the EU/NATO would have provided some support. The fact that they did not, and the degree to which the claim is being so forcibly rejected, makes one doubt the suggestion of inebriation - as does his presence at the later meeting (in a wheelchair), if pissed, this would never have been allowed happen.
The video that you have posted is from an EU meeting in 2015, when Latvia held the presidency (among other things, the presence of Francois Hollande was a bit of a give away, as was the Latvian flag). It has edited in such a way as to make a political point which may, or may not, be true (here I am being a little cynical, because it appears that the editing that was done was to make things appear worse for Juncker than they would have without the loops, etc.). It is, as I said earlier, something that falls within a pattern of ad hominem attacks against him, mostly online.
I'd be interested to know what you mean by "you people"; as an aside, I am quite competent when it comes to weighing up the pros and cons of an argument - I generally tend to do it well in advance of making comments here or elsewhere (again the benefit of having been a student of history).
So you look at one source in isolation? Fine. I do not. If someone has been caught stealing from sheds before and is caught with a crowbar walking around peering into back gardens, I would be interested in previous evidence.
I also don't think you'd get NATO leaders coming out and saying "Christ that guy was pissed, did you see him?" Politics doesn't work like that.
By "you people" I mean most people on here, on all sides, who talk about politics. I regularly find myself stunned at the lengths people will go to to fool themselves.
I don't think either of us will change our views on this event. And I had to cut out a fair chunk of the quotes above as it is now too big to post apparently, first time that's happened for me.
@Huskaris. I am glad your rant is over because @NornIrishAddick is the last non-Brexiteer you should rant at. His arguments are always presented with clarity and nuance. His answer to your question is absolutely clear, and you have simply resorted in your answer to generalized flailing at "you people". I have no clear idea what you mean by these people, but I suppose they are people who consider that the EU and membership of it is on balance a good thing. To depict @NornIrishAddick as some kind of blinkered tribalist on the issue is absurd. You can depict me like that if you want a target for your generalized attacks . I wish I possessed half of his clarity, depth of knowledge on the subject, and most of all his patience. Give him a break and read his posts more carefully, you might just pick up something that gives you pause for thought.
Rant over :-)
I've explained below what I meant by that. It wasn't meant in the way it probably came across. I'm a remainer ffs.
So you look at one source in isolation? Fine. I do not. If someone has been caught stealing from sheds before and is caught with a crowbar walking around peering into back gardens, I would be interested in previous evidence.
I also don't think you'd get NATO leaders coming out and saying "Christ that guy was pissed, did you see him?" Politics doesn't work like that.
By "you people" I mean most people on here, on all sides, who talk about politics. I regularly find myself stunned at the lengths people will go to fool themselves.
I don't think either of us will change our views on this event. And I had to cut out a fair chunk of the quotes above as it is now too big to post apparently, first time that's happened for me.
Right, I'll try to get this straight.
One of the key things that I was taught as a history student was to treat all sources with caution (because everyone, particularly writing after the event, has an agenda) and to always try to make use of multiple sources.
However, this particular circular argument relates to a specific even this week, and the issue is whether the current allegations are correct (I have read multiple media sources on the allegations, with the allegations pushed by the Sun, Express, Daily Mail and Star).
The use of a heavily edited video from three years ago may demonstrate that Juncker is, in fact a complete pisshead, but anyone relying upon that video to argue that he was drunk at this week's NATO meeting must (if they are being honest) caveat their view because of that editing (and, ideally, should look at all the footage of the particular photo opportunity to determine for themselves that the edited clip is not inaccurate - mind you, I do really hope none of us are that dull).
I'm not sure that, as that nice Mr. Trump is one of the NATO leaders, they would not have said anything. However, that is immaterial. The nature of the organisations and the popularity, or otherwise, of Mr. Juncker mean that journalists would very quickly have had numerous "sources" providing briefings against him. That this has not happened is, I would argue, something that makes it reasonable to consider that the explanation provided is believable.
Don't get me wrong, if he was drunk, Juncker would deserve all the flak aimed at him; but the fact that he attended the meeting after the photo opportunity argues against the idea that he was.
Like I said, we won't change our minds on this. No amount of editing can make a mans hand slap several people on the face.
We are both welcome to our opinions though, but lets hope you are as generous if it happens to someone who has different political opinions to you and I.
Well you are wrong. I agree if he is using illness as an excuse he deserves sanction, but if not comments about that are not right. Diane Abbott definitely has diabetes.
I know she does, and I don't dispute that juncker has whatever he might be claiming to have.
What is would dispute in both cases is that that is the legitimate reason for their conduct and performance.
Like I said, does that illness cause you to slap people and act in an exceptionally drunken way and declare a leader "a dictator"? If it does I am willing to entertain it.
As for Abbot, if you believe her piss poor performance in that interview was a consequence of her diabetes than more the fool you I guess.
I always find it amazing, the level of misdirection and lies we will gladly sit through, if they are on our side. Theres plenty of outright lies on the right as well (whenever Trump opens his mouth), but for personal reasons I find the blaming it on a disability thing (where if you are truly honest with yourself in both cases, we can tell it's not) very, very distasteful.
I would like to think I am wrong and both Juncker and Abbot are telling the truth, but I just don't think they are. That's not because I don't want to believe, it's because looking at the evidence and their form, it's not down to an illness. It's like whiplash, you can never truly prove or disprove. Which makes it all the more cynical
Well in terms of Abbot, it might not be she is a great speaker normally - I am not a great fan of her - but it is a known condition she has and it can affect her and if you want to scrape the bottom of the barrel be my guest. I'd take the same view if it was Theresa May - I would never make fun out of people who are unwell.
Well you are wrong. I agree if he is using illness as an excuse he deserves sanction, but if not comments about that are not right. Diane Abbott definitely has diabetes.
I know she does, and I don't dispute that juncker has whatever he might be claiming to have.
What is would dispute in both cases is that that is the legitimate reason for their conduct and performance.
Like I said, does that illness cause you to slap people and act in an exceptionally drunken way and declare a leader "a dictator"? If it does I am willing to entertain it.
As for Abbot, if you believe her piss poor performance in that interview was a consequence of her diabetes than more the fool you I guess.
I always find it amazing, the level of misdirection and lies we will gladly sit through, if they are on our side. Theres plenty of outright lies on the right as well (whenever Trump opens his mouth), but for personal reasons I find the blaming it on a disability thing (where if you are truly honest with yourself in both cases, we can tell it's not) very, very distasteful.
I would like to think I am wrong and both Juncker and Abbot are telling the truth, but I just don't think they are. That's not because I don't want to believe, it's because looking at the evidence and their form, it's not down to an illness. It's like whiplash, you can never truly prove or disprove. Which makes it all the more cynical
Well in terms of Abbot, it might not be she is a great speaker normally - I am not a great fan of her - but it is a known condition she has and it can affect her and if you want to scrape the bottom of the barrel be my guest. I'd take the same view if it was Theresa May - I would never make fun out of people who are unwell.
Neither would I. But quite simply, I don't believe that is the cause of her poor performance.
It does, however, enable supporters to claim anyone who disagrees is a scummy barrel scraper. My argument would be that it is actually their PR team who are scraping the bottom of the barrel...
I really, really hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am. It is a difference of opinion. For me, it just doesn't add up.
Look mate, I know you voted Remain. You are however lashing out a group of people whom you brand as "you people", and you seem to include @NornIrishAddick as one of them, whoever or whatever they are. You seem to have completely ignored Norn's follwoing remarks, probably because they are couched in his typically restrained terms
I get the impression that you think I like Jean Claude Juncker, when I'm not really bothered about him one way or the other. He would not have been my choice for Commission President if I'd had one...
And I second that. I'd go a bit further on Juncker. I think he has developed a sense of entitlement which frequently causes him to say and do things which are detrimental.
However you can blame Cameron for him still being in post. Cameron wanted someone else, but nobody wantd to side with Cameron because in fact no one in Europe believed Cameron was a proper European, after all he allowed elements of his party to behave like an internal wing of UKIP. If you are the most unruly and disruptive member of the golf club, no one backs your idea of a new Chairman, even if that person has some merit.
All Norn has tried to do is examine the -apparent - facts and the sources for them, and come to a cool rational judgement on whether Juncker was really drunk at this meeting this week.
I don't know how Diane Abbott came into this, but again, as someone who may be one of "you people" let me repeat my opinion that she is not sufficiently intelligent (or more specifically possessed of sufficient analytical skills) to be a Minister of State. As such she is part of a current Labour front bench team that makes me unable to vote for them. However I am quite sure that she is a terrific MP for the particular - relatively impoverished and ethnically diverse - constituency she represents, as evidenced by her huge majority.
Its those two words 'you people' that got you into trouble, with me anyway. It is symptomatic of the dismal state of British public discourse at this time.
Look mate, I know you voted Remain. You are however lashing out a group of people whom you brand as "you people", and you seem to include @NornIrishAddick as one of them, whoever or whatever they are. You seem to have completely ignored Norn's follwoing remarks, probably because they are couched in his typically restrained terms
I get the impression that you think I like Jean Claude Juncker, when I'm not really bothered about him one way or the other. He would not have been my choice for Commission President if I'd had one...
And I second that. I'd go a bit further on Juncker. I think he has developed a sense of entitlement which frequently causes him to say and do things which are detrimental.
However you can blame Cameron for him still being in post. Cameron wanted someone else, but nobody wantd to side with Cameron because in fact no one in Europe believed Cameron was a proper European, after all he allowed elements of his party to behave like an internal wing of UKIP. If you are the most unruly and disruptive member of the golf club, no one backs your idea of a new Chairman, even if that person has some merit.
All Norn has tried to do is examine the -apparent - facts and the sources for them, and come to a cool rational judgement on whether Juncker was really drunk at this meeting this week.
I don't know how Diane Abbott came into this, but again, as someone who may be one of "you people" let me repeat my opinion that she is not sufficiently intelligent (or more specifically possessed of sufficient analytical skills) to be a Minister of State. As such she is part of a current Labour front bench team that makes me unable to vote for them. However I am quite sure that she is a terrific MP for the particular - relatively impoverished and ethnically diverse - constituency she represents, as evidenced by her huge majority.
Its those two words 'you people' that got you into trouble, with me anyway. It is symptomatic of the dismal state of British public discourse at this time.
You've taken "you people" out of context and decided to run with it. It was supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek comment about everyone on here, this is why I started the sentence with "as an aside". I understand why it wasn't taken that way, if it were a discussion in a pub or in person I think you would have understood how I meant it. I'm sorry that it was misinterpreted and that was my fault for not considering how it would come across. Sorry.
Well you are wrong. I agree if he is using illness as an excuse he deserves sanction, but if not comments about that are not right. Diane Abbott definitely has diabetes.
I know she does, and I don't dispute that juncker has whatever he might be claiming to have.
What is would dispute in both cases is that that is the legitimate reason for their conduct and performance.
Like I said, does that illness cause you to slap people and act in an exceptionally drunken way and declare a leader "a dictator"? If it does I am willing to entertain it.
As for Abbot, if you believe her piss poor performance in that interview was a consequence of her diabetes than more the fool you I guess.
I always find it amazing, the level of misdirection and lies we will gladly sit through, if they are on our side. Theres plenty of outright lies on the right as well (whenever Trump opens his mouth), but for personal reasons I find the blaming it on a disability thing (where if you are truly honest with yourself in both cases, we can tell it's not) very, very distasteful.
I would like to think I am wrong and both Juncker and Abbot are telling the truth, but I just don't think they are. That's not because I don't want to believe, it's because looking at the evidence and their form, it's not down to an illness. It's like whiplash, you can never truly prove or disprove. Which makes it all the more cynical
Well in terms of Abbot, it might not be she is a great speaker normally - I am not a great fan of her - but it is a known condition she has and it can affect her and if you want to scrape the bottom of the barrel be my guest. I'd take the same view if it was Theresa May - I would never make fun out of people who are unwell.
Neither would I. But quite simply, I don't believe that is the cause of her poor performance.
It does, however, enable supporters to claim anyone who disagrees is a scummy barrel scraper. My argument would be that it is actually their PR team who are scraping the bottom of the barrel...
I really, really hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am. It is a difference of opinion. For me, it just doesn't add up.
Well, maybe it isn't too much of a big deal to be a bit circumspect where there is a genuine doubt.
Look mate, I know you voted Remain. You are however lashing out a group of people whom you brand as "you people", and you seem to include @NornIrishAddick as one of them, whoever or whatever they are. You seem to have completely ignored Norn's follwoing remarks, probably because they are couched in his typically restrained terms
I get the impression that you think I like Jean Claude Juncker, when I'm not really bothered about him one way or the other. He would not have been my choice for Commission President if I'd had one...
And I second that. I'd go a bit further on Juncker. I think he has developed a sense of entitlement which frequently causes him to say and do things which are detrimental.
However you can blame Cameron for him still being in post. Cameron wanted someone else, but nobody wantd to side with Cameron because in fact no one in Europe believed Cameron was a proper European, after all he allowed elements of his party to behave like an internal wing of UKIP. If you are the most unruly and disruptive member of the golf club, no one backs your idea of a new Chairman, even if that person has some merit.
All Norn has tried to do is examine the -apparent - facts and the sources for them, and come to a cool rational judgement on whether Juncker was really drunk at this meeting this week.
I don't know how Diane Abbott came into this, but again, as someone who may be one of "you people" let me repeat my opinion that she is not sufficiently intelligent (or more specifically possessed of sufficient analytical skills) to be a Minister of State. As such she is part of a current Labour front bench team that makes me unable to vote for them. However I am quite sure that she is a terrific MP for the particular - relatively impoverished and ethnically diverse - constituency she represents, as evidenced by her huge majority.
Its those two words 'you people' that got you into trouble, with me anyway. It is symptomatic of the dismal state of British public discourse at this time.
I thought you couldn't vote Labour because you were a Liberal Democrat voter?
Look mate, I know you voted Remain. You are however lashing out a group of people whom you brand as "you people", and you seem to include @NornIrishAddick as one of them, whoever or whatever they are. You seem to have completely ignored Norn's follwoing remarks, probably because they are couched in his typically restrained terms
I get the impression that you think I like Jean Claude Juncker, when I'm not really bothered about him one way or the other. He would not have been my choice for Commission President if I'd had one...
And I second that. I'd go a bit further on Juncker. I think he has developed a sense of entitlement which frequently causes him to say and do things which are detrimental.
However you can blame Cameron for him still being in post. Cameron wanted someone else, but nobody wantd to side with Cameron because in fact no one in Europe believed Cameron was a proper European, after all he allowed elements of his party to behave like an internal wing of UKIP. If you are the most unruly and disruptive member of the golf club, no one backs your idea of a new Chairman, even if that person has some merit.
All Norn has tried to do is examine the -apparent - facts and the sources for them, and come to a cool rational judgement on whether Juncker was really drunk at this meeting this week.
I don't know how Diane Abbott came into this, but again, as someone who may be one of "you people" let me repeat my opinion that she is not sufficiently intelligent (or more specifically possessed of sufficient analytical skills) to be a Minister of State. As such she is part of a current Labour front bench team that makes me unable to vote for them. However I am quite sure that she is a terrific MP for the particular - relatively impoverished and ethnically diverse - constituency she represents, as evidenced by her huge majority.
Its those two words 'you people' that got you into trouble, with me anyway. It is symptomatic of the dismal state of British public discourse at this time.
I thought you couldn't vote Labour because you were a Liberal Democrat voter?
Depends where I am voting, doesnt it. I keep moving around to confuse the Electoral offices :-) Last time around in Eltham I voted for a Labour Remainer who works hard for his constituents and footie fans, and was under threat from some Tory twat. Now hes safe, next time I might have to think harder.
Anyway thanks for reminding me to tell them I've moved again.:-)
Watching the Tory Party leader and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Theresa May on Andrew Marr this morning has added a new layer of incredulity to this already surreal saga. If a (long version) definition of absolute gobbledygook is ever needed, people can reference this interview. Theresa May keeps on keeping on but frankly I don't know why. One story is a dutiful politician serving the country, but that idea has already been destroyed by the events around the last power grab election she so smugly called. Surely the people of Maidenhead must regret not choosing Lord Buckethead.
She said that Trump's advice had been to sue the EU. WTF? For what exactly? Under which jurisdiction? And exactly how long did he think that might take? But I am sure it sounds like tough talk in Des Moines Iowa, which is all that matters to the orange twat.
In the same programme Amanda Platell asserted that the orange blimp showed lack of respect to a guest. Grimly hilarious to hear an Australian showing good old British deference to power and wealth. I thought Sadiq Khan answered that pretty well, as he did to all the questions put to him. Just wish he would practice not swallowing his words.
Although only a small chance, I could see a scenario where Johnson gets the vote of no confidence rolling tomorrow with his "alternative" vision. Storms into the EU, and says that Britain will actually Brexit, rather than "Brexit"
That would be terrifying.
I feel sorry for Theresa May, she has a job where no matter what she does, almost everyone will be disappointed.
Only caught the last couple of minutes. At one point in the bit I saw she was in the middle of answering a question, using the usual trite, heard it a million times before, sound bites when Marr interrupted her with another question. It was literally like she had suffered a short circuit and the last bit of the sound bite was spluttered like a speaking robot as its power supply drains away.
Only caught the last couple of minutes. At one point in the bit I saw she was in the middle of answering a question, using the usual trite, heard it a million times before, sound bites when Marr interrupted her with another question. It was literally like she had suffered a short circuit and the last bit of the sound bite was spluttered like a speaking robot as its power supply drains away.
Although only a small chance, I could see a scenario where Johnson gets the vote of no confidence rolling tomorrow with his "alternative" vision. Storms into the EU, and says that Britain will actually Brexit, rather than "Brexit"
That would be terrifying.
I feel sorry for Theresa May, she has a job where no matter what she does, almost everyone will be disappointed.
She doesn't care. It's just the power that matters. Husband's a millionaire, her post PM career will be as lucrative as all the others and in 150 years time when people look her up on Wikipedia, she will still have her name in the history books albeit mostly forgotten in the same way that Henry Addington and John Russell are. Those that probe more deeply will probably view her much the same as way as we view Neville Chamberlain, someone in a shit place at a shit time.
Although only a small chance, I could see a scenario where Johnson gets the vote of no confidence rolling tomorrow with his "alternative" vision. Storms into the EU, and says that Britain will actually Brexit, rather than "Brexit"
That would be terrifying.
I feel sorry for Theresa May, she has a job where no matter what she does, almost everyone will be disappointed.
Which she made considerably worse for herself (and us) by chasing more votes with her "red lines".
In case anyone has missed it, Trump has now backtracked and called the Sun interview "fake news". He's just fucked over arguably the most powerful UK newspaper, Murdoch owned, and largely read by the very minority of Brits who don't think he's a muppet.
It's made my day.
Technically what Trump said was spot on! For if the UK stays wedded to EU regulations and the Customs Union then the US will have to deal with the entire EU representing the 27 plus EFTA plus the UK.
He has been played by Murdoch. Diplomatically you really don't get much lower than performing a u-turn within 24 hours. The guy is a simpleton chasing sound bites and his base vote. His approach happens to coincide with Farage, Le Pen and the Alt-right in the UK which is why he would love to see Johnson take over. And why his instinct was to criticise the latest Tory approach.
But to actually deliver such a naive interview in the middle of a visit to the UK is spectacular.
Davis has tried a follow up article in the FT with a similar line stating that remaining wedded to EU regulations will hinder international trade negotiations. The thing is that Davis had two years to deliver something and failed.
Both Trump and Davis are clearly members of the "leave everything" camp. What they happen to have in common is a disruptive deregulation approach. They and others target the EU because it makes regulations and is big enough to take a stance on big business, especially in the technology fields. They both conflate sovereignty with walking away from regulatory alignment with the EU.
This isn't a re-run of Leave or Remain for we had that vote two years ago. This is all about how close we remain in the orbit of the EU. And how the development of the debate and GDP affects the polls.
Both of the stats below might be a one off but they should be noted nonetheless. Firstly the latest ONS GDP release shows growth remains at 0.2% per quarter with a noticeable contraction in construction. And second Labour remain at 40% in the polls whilst the Tories have lost 5% to UKIP. So the Tories are now trailing Labour by 4%. In other words, the government shift to a softer Brexit has weakened the Tory vote albeit this is just one poll.
The Tory 2017 strategy as noted by @Bournemouth Addick appears to be unravelling?
Ultimately the Brexit outcome has nothing to do with Trump and Davis. The reality is that everything is in the gift of M.Barnier. most notably how and when he says no to the latest white paper and how he and May might deliver something like a Norway or Switzerland solution.
One interesting question to come out of the Trump statements was published in a Sunday Mirror poll. "Do you think the UK should prioritise a trade deal with the EU or US?" 50% chose the EU whilst 30% chose the US.
Should they be successful, it's not hard to envisage a surge in UKIP support back to the 15% alt-right norm across Europe. And much of that surge will come from Tory voters switching as are more inclined to support a hard Brexit than the rest of the country.
@Southbank has made this point several times. And with the right leadership / backing either UKIP or a new alt-right entity could easily climb to 15-20%
It's very easy to be wise after the event. But I just wish that, before she even selected her first Cabinet, she produced a document that explained what her version of Brexit was. With references to the Customs Union, Single Market Irish border, EU citizens' rights, etc. Then - and only then - she could select her Cabinet on the basis that everyone in it signs up to the version.
We should have known two years ago what "version" of Brexit our Government was heading towards. And, even though I would always prefer the remain-and-reform position, if we had a published, agreed, Government-endorsed position that we knew the Cabinet was behind and we knew that hurdles against it would be systematically removed, then I can see that being a "bring the country together" position.
Even if some Tory backbench MPs were against it, it would have been a sensible position. Because some opposition MPs would have been for it.
But because it's been left too late, some people have used the tension it's caused to further their own agendas. And because some people within the Cabinet have jumped, some people outside the Cabinet have piped up. Those with the weakest political position and the most questionable mandate are now driving their own agendas.
The fact is that the Chequers agreement did the two things it needed to. It delivers Brexit (where Brexit means the UK leaving the EU) and it mitigated against the worst damage a more severe version of Brexit would do. But, as it's taken too long to reach the position, it's given the opportunity to those in both main parties who want a worse version to ramp up the rhetoric.
The Chequers agreement *is* Brexit. There may be those who still want to promulgate and demand a worse version. But we haven't established yet what version of Brexit the likes of Rees Mogg, Johnson, Davis and Farage want, in detail. Why is the detail missing? Because it can be forensically examined, challenged, and shown up for the folly it is. And the worst and most damaging deal possible is, of course, no deal. Who in their right mind would want that? (And concentrate on the "in their right mind", before answering).
It's in our national interest to remain the EU, as a full member of the top-table, with all our hard-won rebates, opt-outs and vetoes. Brexit is going to be very painful and extremely damaging to anyone other than a thin sector of society. Those with significant assets and the opportunity to exploit tax advantages from abroad, while outside the grasp of the EU. People like Rees Mogg, Johnson, Davis and Farage.
The time has come, in my view, to finalise the deal then put it to the people. With a simple question. Here's the deal - do we take it and leave, or scrap the deal and remain? We will have enough knowledge to make a considered determination. And because it will be made on the basis of fact and not scaremongering, I think the decision - whatever it is - will be trusted and will bring most of the country closer together. And I also think that anyone not happy with giving people the chance to make a considered, fact-based decision would have to explain why they don't trust the democratic process. But I am sure there's no-one that really thinks that.
Comments
I also don't think you'd get NATO leaders coming out and saying "Christ that guy was pissed, did you see him?" Politics doesn't work like that.
By "you people" I mean most people on here, on all sides, who talk about politics. I regularly find myself stunned at the lengths people will go to to fool themselves.
I don't think either of us will change our views on this event. And I had to cut out a fair chunk of the quotes above as it is now too big to post apparently, first time that's happened for me.
Indeed he is Righty McRightface talking about Norn.
One of the key things that I was taught as a history student was to treat all sources with caution (because everyone, particularly writing after the event, has an agenda) and to always try to make use of multiple sources.
However, this particular circular argument relates to a specific even this week, and the issue is whether the current allegations are correct (I have read multiple media sources on the allegations, with the allegations pushed by the Sun, Express, Daily Mail and Star).
The use of a heavily edited video from three years ago may demonstrate that Juncker is, in fact a complete pisshead, but anyone relying upon that video to argue that he was drunk at this week's NATO meeting must (if they are being honest) caveat their view because of that editing (and, ideally, should look at all the footage of the particular photo opportunity to determine for themselves that the edited clip is not inaccurate - mind you, I do really hope none of us are that dull).
I'm not sure that, as that nice Mr. Trump is one of the NATO leaders, they would not have said anything. However, that is immaterial. The nature of the organisations and the popularity, or otherwise, of Mr. Juncker mean that journalists would very quickly have had numerous "sources" providing briefings against him. That this has not happened is, I would argue, something that makes it reasonable to consider that the explanation provided is believable.
Don't get me wrong, if he was drunk, Juncker would deserve all the flak aimed at him; but the fact that he attended the meeting after the photo opportunity argues against the idea that he was.
We are both welcome to our opinions though, but lets hope you are as generous if it happens to someone who has different political opinions to you and I.
It does, however, enable supporters to claim anyone who disagrees is a scummy barrel scraper. My argument would be that it is actually their PR team who are scraping the bottom of the barrel...
I really, really hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am. It is a difference of opinion. For me, it just doesn't add up.
Look mate, I know you voted Remain. You are however lashing out a group of people whom you brand as "you people", and you seem to include @NornIrishAddick as one of them, whoever or whatever they are. You seem to have completely ignored Norn's follwoing remarks, probably because they are couched in his typically restrained terms
I get the impression that you think I like Jean Claude Juncker, when I'm not really bothered about him one way or the other. He would not have been my choice for Commission President if I'd had one...
And I second that. I'd go a bit further on Juncker. I think he has developed a sense of entitlement which frequently causes him to say and do things which are detrimental.
However you can blame Cameron for him still being in post. Cameron wanted someone else, but nobody wantd to side with Cameron because in fact no one in Europe believed Cameron was a proper European, after all he allowed elements of his party to behave like an internal wing of UKIP. If you are the most unruly and disruptive member of the golf club, no one backs your idea of a new Chairman, even if that person has some merit.
All Norn has tried to do is examine the -apparent - facts and the sources for them, and come to a cool rational judgement on whether Juncker was really drunk at this meeting this week.
I don't know how Diane Abbott came into this, but again, as someone who may be one of "you people" let me repeat my opinion that she is not sufficiently intelligent (or more specifically possessed of sufficient analytical skills) to be a Minister of State. As such she is part of a current Labour front bench team that makes me unable to vote for them. However I am quite sure that she is a terrific MP for the particular - relatively impoverished and ethnically diverse - constituency she represents, as evidenced by her huge majority.
Its those two words 'you people' that got you into trouble, with me anyway. It is symptomatic of the dismal state of British public discourse at this time.
That would be 80% of our economy moving sticks, or at least increasing their EU presence. Traitors, presumably
Anyway thanks for reminding me to tell them I've moved again.:-)
If a (long version) definition of absolute gobbledygook is ever needed, people can reference this interview.
Theresa May keeps on keeping on but frankly I don't know why. One story is a dutiful politician serving the country, but that idea has already been destroyed by the events around the last power grab election she so smugly called.
Surely the people of Maidenhead must regret not choosing Lord Buckethead.
In the same programme Amanda Platell asserted that the orange blimp showed lack of respect to a guest. Grimly hilarious to hear an Australian showing good old British deference to power and wealth. I thought Sadiq Khan answered that pretty well, as he did to all the questions put to him. Just wish he would practice not swallowing his words.
That would be terrifying.
I feel sorry for Theresa May, she has a job where no matter what she does, almost everyone will be disappointed.
He has been played by Murdoch. Diplomatically you really don't get much lower than performing a u-turn within 24 hours. The guy is a simpleton chasing sound bites and his base vote. His approach happens to coincide with Farage, Le Pen and the Alt-right in the UK which is why he would love to see Johnson take over. And why his instinct was to criticise the latest Tory approach.
But to actually deliver such a naive interview in the middle of a visit to the UK is spectacular.
Davis has tried a follow up article in the FT with a similar line stating that remaining wedded to EU regulations will hinder international trade negotiations. The thing is that Davis had two years to deliver something and failed.
Both Trump and Davis are clearly members of the "leave everything" camp. What they happen to have in common is a disruptive deregulation approach. They and others target the EU because it makes regulations and is big enough to take a stance on big business, especially in the technology fields. They both conflate sovereignty with walking away from regulatory alignment with the EU.
This isn't a re-run of Leave or Remain for we had that vote two years ago. This is all about how close we remain in the orbit of the EU. And how the development of the debate and GDP affects the polls.
Both of the stats below might be a one off but they should be noted nonetheless. Firstly the latest ONS GDP release shows growth remains at 0.2% per quarter with a noticeable contraction in construction. And second Labour remain at 40% in the polls whilst the Tories have lost 5% to UKIP. So the Tories are now trailing Labour by 4%. In other words, the government shift to a softer Brexit has weakened the Tory vote albeit this is just one poll.
The Tory 2017 strategy as noted by @Bournemouth Addick appears to be unravelling?
Ultimately the Brexit outcome has nothing to do with Trump and Davis. The reality is that everything is in the gift of M.Barnier. most notably how and when he says no to the latest white paper and how he and May might deliver something like a Norway or Switzerland solution.
One interesting question to come out of the Trump statements was published in a Sunday Mirror poll. "Do you think the UK should prioritise a trade deal with the EU or US?" 50% chose the EU whilst 30% chose the US.
Should they be successful, it's not hard to envisage a surge in UKIP support back to the 15% alt-right norm across Europe. And much of that surge will come from Tory voters switching as are more inclined to support a hard Brexit than the rest of the country.
@Southbank has made this point several times. And with the right leadership / backing either UKIP or a new alt-right entity could easily climb to 15-20%
We should have known two years ago what "version" of Brexit our Government was heading towards. And, even though I would always prefer the remain-and-reform position, if we had a published, agreed, Government-endorsed position that we knew the Cabinet was behind and we knew that hurdles against it would be systematically removed, then I can see that being a "bring the country together" position.
Even if some Tory backbench MPs were against it, it would have been a sensible position. Because some opposition MPs would have been for it.
But because it's been left too late, some people have used the tension it's caused to further their own agendas. And because some people within the Cabinet have jumped, some people outside the Cabinet have piped up. Those with the weakest political position and the most questionable mandate are now driving their own agendas.
The fact is that the Chequers agreement did the two things it needed to. It delivers Brexit (where Brexit means the UK leaving the EU) and it mitigated against the worst damage a more severe version of Brexit would do. But, as it's taken too long to reach the position, it's given the opportunity to those in both main parties who want a worse version to ramp up the rhetoric.
The Chequers agreement *is* Brexit. There may be those who still want to promulgate and demand a worse version. But we haven't established yet what version of Brexit the likes of Rees Mogg, Johnson, Davis and Farage want, in detail. Why is the detail missing? Because it can be forensically examined, challenged, and shown up for the folly it is. And the worst and most damaging deal possible is, of course, no deal. Who in their right mind would want that? (And concentrate on the "in their right mind", before answering).
It's in our national interest to remain the EU, as a full member of the top-table, with all our hard-won rebates, opt-outs and vetoes. Brexit is going to be very painful and extremely damaging to anyone other than a thin sector of society. Those with significant assets and the opportunity to exploit tax advantages from abroad, while outside the grasp of the EU. People like Rees Mogg, Johnson, Davis and Farage.
The time has come, in my view, to finalise the deal then put it to the people. With a simple question. Here's the deal - do we take it and leave, or scrap the deal and remain? We will have enough knowledge to make a considered determination. And because it will be made on the basis of fact and not scaremongering, I think the decision - whatever it is - will be trusted and will bring most of the country closer together. And I also think that anyone not happy with giving people the chance to make a considered, fact-based decision would have to explain why they don't trust the democratic process. But I am sure there's no-one that really thinks that.