Maybe, rather than leave it, we should be trying to change it for the better.
Foolishly, I believed that is exactly what would happen during the negotiations.
A lot could have been done over the last couple of years to achieve this. The paucity of talent in our government has produced a diametrically opposite result.
The negotiations were about us leaving the EU not about reforming it to our liking.
I could give a glib golf club analogy but quite frankly if you don’t still understand what Article 50 actually is for then there’s no point.
Sorry if this sounds awful but your post shows a complete and utter failure to recognise the facts in front of you.
I think you are deliberately misrepresenting me here.
I know exactly what article 50 means. The fact is that May called it too soon. There was absolutely no hurry and we could have entered into productive negotiations with the EU, and worked together to develop benefits for all, eg the concentric circle model.
If that had occurred, there might have been no need to even go as far as Article 50.
So at which point over the “last couple of years” during the EXIT negotiations were you expecting the U.K. to broach the subject of EU reform ?
Maybe, rather than leave it, we should be trying to change it for the better.
Foolishly, I believed that is exactly what would happen during the negotiations.
A lot could have been done over the last couple of years to achieve this. The paucity of talent in our government has produced a diametrically opposite result.
The negotiations were about us leaving the EU not about reforming it to our liking.
I could give a glib golf club analogy but quite frankly if you don’t still understand what Article 50 actually is for then there’s no point.
Sorry if this sounds awful but your post shows a complete and utter failure to recognise the facts in front of you.
I think you are deliberately misrepresenting me here.
I know exactly what article 50 means. The fact is that May called it too soon. There was absolutely no hurry and we could have entered into productive negotiations with the EU, and worked together to develop benefits for all, eg the concentric circle model.
If that had occurred, there might have been no need to even go as far as Article 50.
So at which point over the “last couple of years” during the EXIT negotiations were you expecting the U.K. to broach the subject of EU reform ?
Maybe, rather than leave it, we should be trying to change it for the better.
Foolishly, I believed that is exactly what would happen during the negotiations.
A lot could have been done over the last couple of years to achieve this. The paucity of talent in our government has produced a diametrically opposite result.
The negotiations were about us leaving the EU not about reforming it to our liking.
I could give a glib golf club analogy but quite frankly if you don’t still understand what Article 50 actually is for then there’s no point.
Sorry if this sounds awful but your post shows a complete and utter failure to recognise the facts in front of you.
I think you are deliberately misrepresenting me here.
I know exactly what article 50 means. The fact is that May called it too soon. There was absolutely no hurry and we could have entered into productive negotiations with the EU, and worked together to develop benefits for all, eg the concentric circle model.
If that had occurred, there might have been no need to even go as far as Article 50.
So at which point over the “last couple of years” during the EXIT negotiations were you expecting the U.K. to broach the subject of EU reform ?
You couldn’t make it up.
From day one without Article 50 being invoked.
Is that clearer?
I'm confused then. If the referendum was to be used only as a negotiating tactic, in what way would that uphold "the will of the people" and all that rhetorical bluster that seems to trump any semblance of preventing massive self harm to the UK?
This is almost unbelievable, but the BBC have "proudly" announced that they are putting Aaron Banks on the Marr Show tomorrow. Stop and let that sink in for a moment...
A person is invited on to the Marr Show, because he faces criminal proceedings. Before the proceedings have even started, they give him the opportunity on an allegedly top current affairs show to explain why he is innocent.
If, like me you think that is beyond disgraceful you could do what loads of people on Twitter have done, nd complain. However as I have found out, it is difficult to get anything sensible out of the BBC complaints machine.
It would b wrong of me to put this contact on Twitter, but if any of you feel as strongly as I do that it is wrong to give that steaming pile of turd a platform, you could email directly Colin Tregear who is the Complaints Director of the Executive Complaints Unit: colin.tregear.01@bbc.co.uk
Some good inspiration for the wording of complaints on
How anyone can suggest that the BBC is somehow pro-Remain, as @Southbank does is beyond my comprehension. As indeed is the current state of BBC news coverage.
Maybe, rather than leave it, we should be trying to change it for the better.
Foolishly, I believed that is exactly what would happen during the negotiations.
A lot could have been done over the last couple of years to achieve this. The paucity of talent in our government has produced a diametrically opposite result.
The negotiations were about us leaving the EU not about reforming it to our liking.
I could give a glib golf club analogy but quite frankly if you don’t still understand what Article 50 actually is for then there’s no point.
Sorry if this sounds awful but your post shows a complete and utter failure to recognise the facts in front of you.
I think you are deliberately misrepresenting me here.
I know exactly what article 50 means. The fact is that May called it too soon. There was absolutely no hurry and we could have entered into productive negotiations with the EU, and worked together to develop benefits for all, eg the concentric circle model.
If that had occurred, there might have been no need to even go as far as Article 50.
So at which point over the “last couple of years” during the EXIT negotiations were you expecting the U.K. to broach the subject of EU reform ?
You couldn’t make it up.
From day one without Article 50 being invoked.
Is that clearer?
I'm confused then. If the referendum was to be used only as a negotiating tactic, in what way would that uphold "the will of the people" and all that rhetorical bluster that seems to trump any semblance of preventing massive self harm to the UK?
No idea, I don’t do rhetoric bluster. I prefer to negotiate.
Maybe, rather than leave it, we should be trying to change it for the better.
Foolishly, I believed that is exactly what would happen during the negotiations.
A lot could have been done over the last couple of years to achieve this. The paucity of talent in our government has produced a diametrically opposite result.
The negotiations were about us leaving the EU not about reforming it to our liking.
I could give a glib golf club analogy but quite frankly if you don’t still understand what Article 50 actually is for then there’s no point.
Sorry if this sounds awful but your post shows a complete and utter failure to recognise the facts in front of you.
I think you are deliberately misrepresenting me here.
I know exactly what article 50 means. The fact is that May called it too soon. There was absolutely no hurry and we could have entered into productive negotiations with the EU, and worked together to develop benefits for all, eg the concentric circle model.
If that had occurred, there might have been no need to even go as far as Article 50.
So at which point over the “last couple of years” during the EXIT negotiations were you expecting the U.K. to broach the subject of EU reform ?
You couldn’t make it up.
From day one without Article 50 being invoked.
Is that clearer?
Unicorns again and again. The rush to invoke Article 50 was indeed a huge error but you still fail to answer why you expected reform negotiations to take place after the Brexit vote which was in case you’ve missed that too, to leave the EU. Up until the referendum the U.K. was perfectly placed to seek reform.
Maybe, rather than leave it, we should be trying to change it for the better.
Foolishly, I believed that is exactly what would happen during the negotiations.
A lot could have been done over the last couple of years to achieve this. The paucity of talent in our government has produced a diametrically opposite result.
The negotiations were about us leaving the EU not about reforming it to our liking.
I could give a glib golf club analogy but quite frankly if you don’t still understand what Article 50 actually is for then there’s no point.
Sorry if this sounds awful but your post shows a complete and utter failure to recognise the facts in front of you.
I think you are deliberately misrepresenting me here.
I know exactly what article 50 means. The fact is that May called it too soon. There was absolutely no hurry and we could have entered into productive negotiations with the EU, and worked together to develop benefits for all, eg the concentric circle model.
If that had occurred, there might have been no need to even go as far as Article 50.
So at which point over the “last couple of years” during the EXIT negotiations were you expecting the U.K. to broach the subject of EU reform ?
You couldn’t make it up.
From day one without Article 50 being invoked.
Is that clearer?
Unicorns again and again. The rush to invoke Article 50 was indeed a huge error but you still fail to answer why you expected reform negotiations to take place after the Brexit vote which was in case you’ve missed that too, to leave the EU. Up until the referendum the U.K. was perfectly placed to seek reform.
Because that is the whole point of negotiations. A vote was completed and then each side discussed what should now be done.
Which could be different to the original intention. That is how a negotiation works ... which May blocked with Article 50.
The referendum asked should we remain or leave - that’s all. Alone it solves nothing nor does it reveal how any decision can be taken forward .., hence we should have had the opportunity to negotiate, thereby allowing all participants to agree an appropriate solution.
As far as I am aware, the referendum was not legally binding, and I always understood it would lead to negotiations.
Good piece here from Mark Gatiss ‘The League of Gentlemen was a premonition of Brexit’ . Also suggests Brexit is like slitting your own throat and going to bed saying I’ll see how I am in the morning. About right.
Maybe, rather than leave it, we should be trying to change it for the better.
Foolishly, I believed that is exactly what would happen during the negotiations.
A lot could have been done over the last couple of years to achieve this. The paucity of talent in our government has produced a diametrically opposite result.
The negotiations were about us leaving the EU not about reforming it to our liking.
I could give a glib golf club analogy but quite frankly if you don’t still understand what Article 50 actually is for then there’s no point.
Sorry if this sounds awful but your post shows a complete and utter failure to recognise the facts in front of you.
I think you are deliberately misrepresenting me here.
I know exactly what article 50 means. The fact is that May called it too soon. There was absolutely no hurry and we could have entered into productive negotiations with the EU, and worked together to develop benefits for all, eg the concentric circle model.
If that had occurred, there might have been no need to even go as far as Article 50.
So at which point over the “last couple of years” during the EXIT negotiations were you expecting the U.K. to broach the subject of EU reform ?
You couldn’t make it up.
From day one without Article 50 being invoked.
Is that clearer?
Unicorns again and again. The rush to invoke Article 50 was indeed a huge error but you still fail to answer why you expected reform negotiations to take place after the Brexit vote which was in case you’ve missed that too, to leave the EU. Up until the referendum the U.K. was perfectly placed to seek reform.
Because that is the whole point of negotiations. A vote was completed and then each side discussed what should now be done.
Which could be different to the original intention. That is how a negotiation works ... which May blocked with Article 50.
The referendum asked should we remain or leave - that’s all. Alone it solves nothing nor does it reveal how any decision can be taken forward .., hence we should have had the opportunity to negotiate, thereby allowing all participants to agree an appropriate solution.
As far as I am aware, the referendum was not legally binding, and I always understood it would lead to negotiations.
Forgetting for the moment the idiot Cameron and the fear by the Conservatives that they would bleed even more votes to UKIP and therefore offer a referendum pulling back those votes in order to retain power. David Cameron had already visited the EU to discuss this country’s reform ideas and to seek ways to resolve the issues and returned virtually empty handed.
I think we agree that reform of the EU from within was the way forward. The leave vote didn’t strengthen our hand at all as subsequent events have proved.
This is almost unbelievable, but the BBC have "proudly" announced that they are putting Aaron Banks on the Marr Show tomorrow. Stop and let that sink in for a moment...
A person is invited on to the Marr Show, because he faces criminal proceedings. Before the proceedings have even started, they give him the opportunity on an allegedly top current affairs show to explain why he is innocent.
If, like me you think that is beyond disgraceful you could do what loads of people on Twitter have done, nd complain. However as I have found out, it is difficult to get anything sensible out of the BBC complaints machine.
It would b wrong of me to put this contact on Twitter, but if any of you feel as strongly as I do that it is wrong to give that steaming pile of turd a platform, you could email directly Colin Tregear who is the Complaints Director of the Executive Complaints Unit: colin.tregear.01@bbc.co.uk
Some good inspiration for the wording of complaints on
How anyone can suggest that the BBC is somehow pro-Remain, as @Southbank does is beyond my comprehension. As indeed is the current state of BBC news coverage.
@stonemuse Ive been following your views and largely agree with a lot of it... The EU needs serious reform, and is quite possibly incapable of it. Not least to improve as a union, but also to provide flexibility into the system if it goes tits up. Human nature what it is (and I'm thinking Greek and Italian basket case economies) there is huge call for flexibility. That's why I'm dead against ever joining the eurozone.
For me, pragmatism trumps idealism... And the UK is full of idealists with conflicting views... And still no idea of what we as a country actually want or need, and no idea how to get it. We'll just get some bollocksy fudge. The idealists are like people who give directions that don't start from where you are. We are inexorably linked to the EU from 40-odd years of cohabitation. The only way for me to improve our lot will be to reform the EU... Leaving is probably going to be for the worst. I really hope it isn't though
So on the back of admitting you know nothing about the Irish question you have formulated you view of what has happened and what’s likely to happen going forward.
By the way the Good Friday Agreement “fudge” has kept the peace ever since it was signed.
Yes, by bowing down to the terrorists, letting murderers on life sentances out scot free & letting the paramilitaries "dispose" of their weapons. If it all starts up again they wont be needing to get their arms from sympathetic Americans, all they need to do is dig up Farmer Paddy's field & find their stash of weapons again.
Oh my giddy aunt.
I really do hope you were just back from the pub when you wrote this.
Yes, terrorists/murderers were released, provided that they had signed up to the agreement, those objecting weren't (this is, dare I say it, not exactly unique in conflict resolutions around the World, other examples, notably South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, have gone further down the same road).
It's not something that any reasonable person considers to be anything other than a necessary evil (and, as I have suggested before, it is better to release people who have been convicted and jailed for an offence than to decide that a certain group, as is often raised at PMQs, should be given an amnesty from any prosecution, purely because of the organisations to which they belonged).
The PSNI have not stopped investigating outstanding cases and, in the context of the GFA, they should not do so, even if that includes uncovering collusion and murder on the part of the security services.
And, in passing, the destruction of the Provisional IRA's capacity to use the weapons it had stockpiled, by having them being verifiably put beyond use (believed to have involved things like, in the presence of members of the de Chastelain Commission, pouring concrete into bunkers that they had inspected).
So, it might be a bit difficult for them to access weapons stashed in Farmer Paddy's field.
Farmer Paddy, oh how I laughed at the stereotypical description.....
Mind you, as your arguments about Northern Ireland and Brexit seem to be driving towards returning us all to the 1970s, I've no doubt more comedy gold awaits.
That is the first time that I've ever seen Nornish respond with anything but facts and logic, and I really can't say I blame him on the back of that post. Quite incredible stuff from Golfie.
With the exception of Stonemuse who struggles on stoically against a total wave of argument and does his best to present a fact based case for Brexit, the paucity of thought from the Brexiteers is astounding. It's feels like the logical argument has been won over a hundred times and yet those that want to leave are still unshakeable in their belief that it's still the right thing to do. I am as amazed as I am saddened by this. What a mess Cameron has created.
This is almost unbelievable, but the BBC have "proudly" announced that they are putting Aaron Banks on the Marr Show tomorrow. Stop and let that sink in for a moment...
A person is invited on to the Marr Show, because he faces criminal proceedings. Before the proceedings have even started, they give him the opportunity on an allegedly top current affairs show to explain why he is innocent.
If, like me you think that is beyond disgraceful you could do what loads of people on Twitter have done, nd complain. However as I have found out, it is difficult to get anything sensible out of the BBC complaints machine.
It would b wrong of me to put this contact on Twitter, but if any of you feel as strongly as I do that it is wrong to give that steaming pile of turd a platform, you could email directly Colin Tregear who is the Complaints Director of the Executive Complaints Unit: colin.tregear.01@bbc.co.uk
Some good inspiration for the wording of complaints on
How anyone can suggest that the BBC is somehow pro-Remain, as @Southbank does is beyond my comprehension. As indeed is the current state of BBC news coverage.
These are criminal offences that Banks is being investigated for. Can anyone think of a time when someone under investigation (guilty or innocent) has been given a such public platform to justify themselves? I can't.
These are criminal offences that Banks is being investigated for. Can anyone think of a time when someone under investigation (guilty or innocent) has been given a such public platform to justify themselves? I can't.
That is exactly what I have asked messrs Oliver and Shipman. In earlier tweets Shipman seems to offer the defence that the investigation has not actually started yet (and we all know why, but that's a diversion). So I have asked him to name his nearest precedent for this. Let's see if he replies.
@stonemuse Ive been following your views and largely agree with a lot of it... The EU needs serious reform, and is quite possibly incapable of it. Not least to improve as a union, but also to provide flexibility into the system if it goes tits up. Human nature what it is (and I'm thinking Greek and Italian basket case economies) there is huge call for flexibility. That's why I'm dead against ever joining the eurozone
With Mutti going soon, I believe there is no chance of reform. I don’t see much chance of the likes of Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal, etc backing Macron.
That broad brush phrase 'The likes of" especially when followed by "etc" is glorious in it's seductive sweep but is actually only useful in giving a vacuum gravitas.
That is a shame. Maybe the Irish PM could demonstrate how much he hates Brexit by paying back that 2 billion quid that we used to bail them out a few years back immediately.
That broad brush phrase 'The likes of" especially when followed by "etc" is glorious in it's seductive sweep but is actually only useful in giving a vacuum gravitas.
What a strange comment.
Ok, just to please you:
With Mutti going soon, I believe there is no chance of reform. I don’t see much chance of Greece, Italy, Poland, and Portugal backing Macron.
This is almost unbelievable, but the BBC have "proudly" announced that they are putting Aaron Banks on the Marr Show tomorrow. Stop and let that sink in for a moment...
A person is invited on to the Marr Show, because he faces criminal proceedings. Before the proceedings have even started, they give him the opportunity on an allegedly top current affairs show to explain why he is innocent.
If, like me you think that is beyond disgraceful you could do what loads of people on Twitter have done, nd complain. However as I have found out, it is difficult to get anything sensible out of the BBC complaints machine.
It would b wrong of me to put this contact on Twitter, but if any of you feel as strongly as I do that it is wrong to give that steaming pile of turd a platform, you could email directly Colin Tregear who is the Complaints Director of the Executive Complaints Unit: colin.tregear.01@bbc.co.uk
Some good inspiration for the wording of complaints on
How anyone can suggest that the BBC is somehow pro-Remain, as @Southbank does is beyond my comprehension. As indeed is the current state of BBC news coverage.
I have to disagree @Chaz Hill . I am a fan of Newsnight and see it as one of the last vestiges of decent journalism in the BBC but that report was deeply flawed. They had two main interviews, the first completely let Richard Tice of the hook, allowing him to play Brexit bingo ("will of the people" "democratic right" etc etc), the second interview was with (the increasingly impressive) Tom Watson. They actually questioned him harder than they did Tice even managed to bring in a dig at Corbyn, which was all but irrelevant to an investigation into Aaron Banks.
That is a shame. Maybe the Irish PM could demonstrate how much he hates Brexit by paying back that 2 billion quid that we used to bail them out a few years back immediately.
Would that be the loan of £3.2 billion, being repaid with interest that Ireland offered to pay back in full ahead of time, an offer that that the UK refused?
The interest that has been paid to date is in the region of half a billion pounds.
I've no doubt that the Taoiseach would willingly pay now and avoid additional interest payments.
That is a shame. Maybe the Irish PM could demonstrate how much he hates Brexit by paying back that 2 billion quid that we used to bail them out a few years back immediately.
Would that be the loan of £3.2 billion, being repaid with interest that Ireland offered to pay back in full ahead of time, an offer that that the UK refused?
The interest that has been paid to date is in the region of half a billion pounds.
I've no doubt that the Taoiseach would willingly pay now and avoid additional interest payments.
You always seem to bring facts in to counter opinion @NornIrishAddick . It is a bit unfair.
These are criminal offences that Banks is being investigated for. Can anyone think of a time when someone under investigation (guilty or innocent) has been given a such public platform to justify themselves? I can't.
There are several incidents of individuals suspected of crime and under investigation being interviewed on television. Not, perhaps, in the same circumstances as Banks, ie someone named and under investigation of serious crime, booked for a set-piece interview. But it's interesting to see how well it ended up for each of them.
Ian Huntley was interviewed a number of times on tv after he had been identified as a suspect. Jimmy Savile was interviewed about specific rumours that were in the public domain by both Andrew Neill and Louis Theroux (and others). Stuart Hall was quizzed on BBC Radio. Jonathan Aitkin was allowed free reign to announce his fight, using "the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of traditional British fair play". Harold Shipman was interviewed on tv prior to his arrest, but a long time after he has been named as a suspect. Conrad Black was no stranger to tv studios while fighting and appealing charges.
Comments
I certainly have no fear of such an event, nor do others that I know who voted to leave.
There was absolutely no need to activate Article 50 so early. It was a massive political mistake by May.
She should have waited until we had agreed our negotiating stance. Political opportunism gone wrong.
You couldn’t make it up.
Is that clearer?
Good investigative piece on the scumbag and his mates on Newsnight last night.
Reflects the problem which arose when Teresa May invoked Article 50.
Which could be different to the original intention. That is how a negotiation works ... which May blocked with Article 50.
The referendum asked should we remain or leave - that’s all. Alone it solves nothing nor does it reveal how any decision can be taken forward .., hence we should have had the opportunity to negotiate, thereby allowing all participants to agree an appropriate solution.
As far as I am aware, the referendum was not legally binding, and I always understood it would lead to negotiations.
I was certainly not on any hurry. Your blanket statement does not apply to all ... the hurry was purely political not the view of the voters.
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/nov/02/mark-gatiss-the-league-of-gentlemen-was-a-premonition-of-brexit?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I think we agree that reform of the EU from within was the way forward. The leave vote didn’t strengthen our hand at all as subsequent events have proved.
For me, pragmatism trumps idealism... And the UK is full of idealists with conflicting views... And still no idea of what we as a country actually want or need, and no idea how to get it. We'll just get some bollocksy fudge. The idealists are like people who give directions that don't start from where you are. We are inexorably linked to the EU from 40-odd years of cohabitation. The only way for me to improve our lot will be to reform the EU... Leaving is probably going to be for the worst. I really hope it isn't though
With the exception of Stonemuse who struggles on stoically against a total wave of argument and does his best to present a fact based case for Brexit, the paucity of thought from the Brexiteers is astounding. It's feels like the logical argument has been won over a hundred times and yet those that want to leave are still unshakeable in their belief that it's still the right thing to do. I am as amazed as I am saddened by this. What a mess Cameron has created.
Fucking unbelievable, their defences of this. What on earth have we come to?
Maybe the Irish PM could demonstrate how much he hates Brexit by paying back that 2 billion quid that we used to bail them out a few years back immediately.
Ok, just to please you:
With Mutti going soon, I believe there is no chance of reform. I don’t see much chance of Greece, Italy, Poland, and Portugal backing Macron.
The interest that has been paid to date is in the region of half a billion pounds.
I've no doubt that the Taoiseach would willingly pay now and avoid additional interest payments.
Ian Huntley was interviewed a number of times on tv after he had been identified as a suspect. Jimmy Savile was interviewed about specific rumours that were in the public domain by both Andrew Neill and Louis Theroux (and others). Stuart Hall was quizzed on BBC Radio. Jonathan Aitkin was allowed free reign to announce his fight, using "the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of traditional British fair play". Harold Shipman was interviewed on tv prior to his arrest, but a long time after he has been named as a suspect. Conrad Black was no stranger to tv studios while fighting and appealing charges.
Arron Banks is in interesting company.