How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Angela Eagle is a labour MP so not really an unbiased source there.
Not sure what the Ashcroft polls say about Corbyn other than that he was a failure but Alan Johnson lead the Labour in campaign. So 63% of labour supporters voted remain. So Corbyn has a mandate to support remain then. But he doesn't.
The Loughborough research contradicts what you quoted Angela Eagle as saying.
Corbyn was Labour Leader so of course he would or should get more appearances in the media than other labour policiticians. What that doesn't say is what did those media appearances cover? What did he say? Did he have any impact.
My recollection was that Corbyn and Labour in general were very low key in the campaign and Corbyn made some half hearted announcements about working time directives and working conditions near the end of the campaign but very little else.
It’s noteworthy that you’ve offered no evidence of your own – apart from your ‘recollection’.
But Angela Eagle’s quote and the Loughborough research, which you wrongly say contradicts what Angela Eagle said, go some way to explaining your ‘recollection’.
Angela Eagle said “if we are not reported, it is very difficult. This whole thing is about Tory big beasts having a battle like rutting stags” and that is supported (not contradicted) by the Loughborouh analysis of media coverage:
“This section examines which individuals, organisations and institutions received most media coverage…….
Key findings
Seven of the top ten people and half of all people in the top thirty are Conservative politicians. In all, they account for 73% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty.
The most frequently reported Labour politician was Jeremy Corbyn (7th). Only ten Labour politicians made the top thirty. They account for 15% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty.
Only two representatives from other UK political parties made the list: Nigel Farage (4th) and Nicola Sturgeon (16th).
No representative of the Liberal Democrats made the top thirty”
Labour made a decision to run it's own 'Labour In' campaign because, based on its' bad experience of the Scottish Independence vote, it did not want to be 'tainted' in the minds of it's supporters by working together with Cameron and other 'Remain' Tories.
Also, as I've posted more recently, I think Corbyn's own account of being 70 - 75% in favour of the EU in an interview during the 2016 referendum in the link below made him more likely to to be able to win over wavering Leave/Remain Labour voters. In the 2016 referendum and now a politician who says they have reservations about the EU but nonetheless says that they believe that ordinary people would be better off if the UK remains an EU member was and is in a better position to win over the many millions who voted for and still support Brexit than any unalloyed europhile from the PLP.
"And documents passed to the BBC suggest Jeremy Corbyn's office sought to delay and water down the Labour Remain campaign. Sources suggest that they are evidence of "deliberate sabotage".
One email from the leader's office suggests that Mr Corbyn's director of strategy and communications, Seumas Milne, was behind Mr Corbyn's reluctance to take a prominent role in Labour's campaign to keep the UK in the EU. One email, discussing one of the leader's speeches, said it was because of the "hand of Seumas. If he can't kill it, he will water it down so much to hope nobody notices it".
A series of messages dating back to December seen by the BBC shows correspondence between the party leader's office, the Labour Remain campaign and Labour HQ, discussing the European campaign. It shows how a sentence talking about immigration was removed on one occasion and how Mr Milne refused to sign off a letter signed by 200 MPs after it had already been approved.
The documents show concern in Labour HQ and the Labour Remain campaign about Mr Corbyn's commitment to the campaign - one email says: "What is going on here?" Another email from Labour Remain sources to the leader's office complains "there is no EU content here - we agreed to have Europe content in it". Sources say they show the leader's office was reluctant to give full support to the EU campaign and how difficult it was to get Mr Corbyn to take a prominent role.
Mr Corbyn has insisted publicly that he campaigned hard to keep the country in the EU and that he made a number of speeches around the country, and attended many campaigning events. But many shadow cabinet ministers believe his performance in the campaign has shown that he is simply not capable of leading the party"
Angela Eagle is a labour MP so not really an unbiased source there.
Not sure what the Ashcroft polls say about Corbyn other than that he was a failure but Alan Johnson lead the Labour in campaign. So 63% of labour supporters voted remain. So Corbyn has a mandate to support remain then. But he doesn't.
The Loughborough research contradicts what you quoted Angela Eagle as saying.
Corbyn was Labour Leader so of course he would or should get more appearances in the media than other labour policiticians. What that doesn't say is what did those media appearances cover? What did he say? Did he have any impact.
My recollection was that Corbyn and Labour in general were very low key in the campaign and Corbyn made some half hearted announcements about working time directives and working conditions near the end of the campaign but very little else.
It’s noteworthy that you’ve offered no evidence of your own – apart from your ‘recollection’.
But Angela Eagle’s quote and the Loughborough research, which you wrongly say contradicts what Angela Eagle said, go some way to explaining your ‘recollection’.
Angela Eagle said “if we are not reported, it is very difficult. This whole thing is about Tory big beasts having a battle like rutting stags” and that is supported (not contradicted) by the Loughborouh analysis of media coverage:
“This section examines which individuals, organisations and institutions received most media coverage…….
Key findings
Seven of the top ten people and half of all people in the top thirty are Conservative politicians. In all, they account for 73% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty.
The most frequently reported Labour politician was Jeremy Corbyn (7th). Only ten Labour politicians made the top thirty. They account for 15% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty.
Only two representatives from other UK political parties made the list: Nigel Farage (4th) and Nicola Sturgeon (16th).
No representative of the Liberal Democrats made the top thirty”
Labour made a decision to run it's own 'Labour In' campaign because, based on its' bad experience of the Scottish Independence vote, it did not want to be 'tainted' in the minds of it's supporters by working together with Cameron and other 'Remain' Tories.
Also, as I've posted more recently, I think Corbyn's own account of being 70 - 75% in favour of the EU in an interview during the 2016 referendum in the link below made him more likely to to be able to win over wavering Leave/Remain Labour voters. In the 2016 referendum and now a politician who says they have reservations about the EU but nonetheless says that they believe that ordinary people would be better off if the UK remains an EU member was and is in a better position to win over the many millions who voted for and still support Brexit than any unalloyed europhile from the PLP.
True, I've not had a chance to do more detailed research but even his 70% in is damning. Hardly a firm stance from a supposed leader. And as Rothko shows he was far from a team player during the campaign and we all know why. Paying lip service to a cause he didn't support
Anyway, quick Google search finds not everyone was impressed with The Dear Leader during the campaign
Arthur. We have options to control immigration, used by other EU countries but we choose not to implement them. Leaving EU will not reduce non-EU migrants, indeed likely to increase as French controls removed at Calais etc. Race hate fuelled by right wing press with their own agenda.
I'm sorry for you and the six usual posters who have liked this post. I am aware that borders could be controlled. What makes you think I dont know this?
What you seem to be deliberately ignoring is that despite the ability to control immigration, the Labour policy under Bliar, guided by Mandy and Camby deliberately encouraged uncontrolled immigration. As they themselves have recorded, immigrants tend to vote Labour.
If you cant see that could be a possible cause of the rise of UKIP, then I'm sorry.
If people cant see the rise of UKIP as playing a part in the Brexit vote then I'm sorry. Yes Cameron was stupid beyond belief to believe Remain would win. But to underestimate the impact of a decade of Labour immigration 'policy' and the subsequent incompetent inability of the Tories to limit numbers as they promised is to seriously miss the point.
To then blame a right wing press, not read by traditional Labour voters and so in no way an influence to those voters voting leave, is disingenious and frankly lazy and just plain wrong.
I voted for, and believe in, Remain.
To blame Cameron, or the right wing press, or whatever casual blame game, may make posters on here feel better, but its not the whole story. Its a shame so many on here refuse to see the bigger picture.
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
so now not only will we be outside of one of the worlds biggest trading blocks, we will be unable to seek protection with a european-wide army.
... great..
Also worth noting, this would likely come under one of the things britain would be able to say "no thanks" when the collection pot comes round. Considering we have an incredible position inside the EU that no other state has.
Ireland have been willing to repay its loans in advance, but the loan from the UK has fixed terms and a severe penalty break clause. Which means that early repayment would cost Ireland more than continuing until the due date for repayment.
Thank you for providing mor evidence that brexit I'd a good thing. The Irish due to financial mismanagement of there own economy have to borrow a load of money and somehow they make it out to be our fault.
The UK will be much better off away from this sort of behaviour.
You do realise that most of the debt accrued by the Irish Government was to bail the banks out, with the Government taking on their bad debts through NAMA and nationalising of some banks?
A significant proportion of the banks that were bailed out were the Irish operations of British banks, and the UK was lending to protect its own banks.
The UK, while a fully-fledged member of the EU, made a sovereign decision to offer a bilateral loan, at rates and under terms that suited the UK.
It is accepted in Ireland that the banking crisis, while part of a worldwide phenomenon, was not someone else's fault.
But there's nothing wrong with pointing out that one lender set terms for its loan that made early repayment prohibitively expensive, in comparison with the other lenders.
All parties were operating on the basis of self-interest.
The whole EU referendum thingy must baffle the Irish.
The British vote to leave the EU. The Irish vote to murder unborn kiddies.
Arthur. We have options to control immigration, used by other EU countries but we choose not to implement them. Leaving EU will not reduce non-EU migrants, indeed likely to increase as French controls removed at Calais etc. Race hate fuelled by right wing press with their own agenda.
I'm sorry for you and the six usual posters who have liked this post. I am aware that borders could be controlled. What makes you think I dont know this?
What you seem to be deliberately ignoring is that despite the ability to control immigration, the Labour policy under Bliar, guided by Mandy and Camby deliberately encouraged uncontrolled immigration. As they themselves have recorded, immigrants tend to vote Labour.
If you cant see that could be a possible cause of the rise of UKIP, then I'm sorry.
If people cant see the rise of UKIP as playing a part in the Brexit vote then I'm sorry. Yes Cameron was stupid beyond belief to believe Remain would win. But to underestimate the impact of a decade of Labour immigration 'policy' and the subsequent incompetent inability of the Tories to limit numbers as they promised is to seriously miss the point.
To then blame a right wing press, not read by traditional Labour voters and so in no way an influence to those voters voting leave, is disingenious and frankly lazy and just plain wrong.
I voted for, and believe in, Remain.
To blame Cameron, or the right wing press for pointing it out may make posters on here feel better, but its not the whole story. Its a shame so many on here refuse to see the bigger picture.
A lot of what you say makes sense but I disagree that labour voters or potential labour voters don't read the Sun or Mail.
I think immigration was a huge issue for many, even if in some cases those fears where unfounded they were still fears.
But the big big factor not mentioned here is the recession. If we'd not had the crash in 2008 how much different would the last ten years have looked. I doubt there would have even been a referendum.
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Arthur. We have options to control immigration, used by other EU countries but we choose not to implement them. Leaving EU will not reduce non-EU migrants, indeed likely to increase as French controls removed at Calais etc. Race hate fuelled by right wing press with their own agenda.
I'm sorry for you and the six usual posters who have liked this post. I am aware that borders could be controlled. What makes you think I dont know this?
What you seem to be deliberately ignoring is that despite the ability to control immigration, the Labour policy under Bliar, guided by Mandy and Camby deliberately encouraged uncontrolled immigration. As they themselves have recorded, immigrants tend to vote Labour.
If you cant see that could be a possible cause of the rise of UKIP, then I'm sorry.
If people cant see the rise of UKIP as playing a part in the Brexit vote then I'm sorry. Yes Cameron was stupid beyond belief to believe Remain would win. But to underestimate the impact of a decade of Labour immigration 'policy' and the subsequent incompetent inability of the Tories to limit numbers as they promised is to seriously miss the point.
To then blame a right wing press, not read by traditional Labour voters and so in no way an influence to those voters voting leave, is disingenious and frankly lazy and just plain wrong.
I voted for, and believe in, Remain.
To blame Cameron, or the right wing press for pointing it out may make posters on here feel better, but its not the whole story. Its a shame so many on here refuse to see the bigger picture.
A lot of what you say makes sense but I disagree that labour voters or potential labour voters don't read the Sun or Mail.
I think immigration was a huge issue for many, even if in some cases those fears where unfounded they were still fears.
But the big big factor not mentioned here is the recession. If we'd not had the crash in 2008 how much different would the last ten years have looked. I doubt there would have even been a referendum.
Ireland have been willing to repay its loans in advance, but the loan from the UK has fixed terms and a severe penalty break clause. Which means that early repayment would cost Ireland more than continuing until the due date for repayment.
Thank you for providing mor evidence that brexit I'd a good thing. The Irish due to financial mismanagement of there own economy have to borrow a load of money and somehow they make it out to be our fault.
The UK will be much better off away from this sort of behaviour.
You do realise that most of the debt accrued by the Irish Government was to bail the banks out, with the Government taking on their bad debts through NAMA and nationalising of some banks?
A significant proportion of the banks that were bailed out were the Irish operations of British banks, and the UK was lending to protect its own banks.
The UK, while a fully-fledged member of the EU, made a sovereign decision to offer a bilateral loan, at rates and under terms that suited the UK.
It is accepted in Ireland that the banking crisis, while part of a worldwide phenomenon, was not someone else's fault.
But there's nothing wrong with pointing out that one lender set terms for its loan that made early repayment prohibitively expensive, in comparison with the other lenders.
All parties were operating on the basis of self-interest.
The whole EU referendum thingy must baffle the Irish.
The British vote to leave the EU. The Irish vote to murder unborn kiddies.
I guess that's why we are called GREAT Britain.
sooo who's gonna tell him we have even more relaxed abortion laws than ireland?
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
You do understand that while the UK is a member of the EU we have a veto to stop the formation of any European Union Army. Now we are leaving our veto ends and the likelihood of Macron getting what he wants have significantly increased. But hey you carry on thinking that Brexit is a victory.
The lack of comprehension by brexiteers has no bounds.
Arthur. We have options to control immigration, used by other EU countries but we choose not to implement them. Leaving EU will not reduce non-EU migrants, indeed likely to increase as French controls removed at Calais etc. Race hate fuelled by right wing press with their own agenda.
I'm sorry for you and the six usual posters who have liked this post. I am aware that borders could be controlled. What makes you think I dont know this?
What you seem to be deliberately ignoring is that despite the ability to control immigration, the Labour policy under Bliar, guided by Mandy and Camby deliberately encouraged uncontrolled immigration. As they themselves have recorded, immigrants tend to vote Labour.
If you cant see that could be a possible cause of the rise of UKIP, then I'm sorry.
If people cant see the rise of UKIP as playing a part in the Brexit vote then I'm sorry. Yes Cameron was stupid beyond belief to believe Remain would win. But to underestimate the impact of a decade of Labour immigration 'policy' and the subsequent incompetent inability of the Tories to limit numbers as they promised is to seriously miss the point.
To then blame a right wing press, not read by traditional Labour voters and so in no way an influence to those voters voting leave, is disingenious and frankly lazy and just plain wrong.
I voted for, and believe in, Remain.
To blame Cameron, or the right wing press for pointing it out may make posters on here feel better, but its not the whole story. Its a shame so many on here refuse to see the bigger picture.
A lot of what you say makes sense but I disagree that labour voters or potential labour voters don't read the Sun or Mail.
I think immigration was a huge issue for many, even if in some cases those fears where unfounded they were still fears.
But the big big factor not mentioned here is the recession. If we'd not had the crash in 2008 how much different would the last ten years have looked. I doubt there would have even been a referendum.
Good points, well made. A perfect storm.
Agree with all that's been said. Recession or not, lots of parts of the UK are either depressed or at the very least struggling due to relative inequality of wealth in different parts of the country. Parts of the country are in decline, and they were most likely to vote brexit. Many complicated reasons for this. We saw with the riots as well that there's a bubbling resentment, and it was ignored at a cost
Ireland have been willing to repay its loans in advance, but the loan from the UK has fixed terms and a severe penalty break clause. Which means that early repayment would cost Ireland more than continuing until the due date for repayment.
Thank you for providing mor evidence that brexit I'd a good thing. The Irish due to financial mismanagement of there own economy have to borrow a load of money and somehow they make it out to be our fault.
The UK will be much better off away from this sort of behaviour.
You do realise that most of the debt accrued by the Irish Government was to bail the banks out, with the Government taking on their bad debts through NAMA and nationalising of some banks?
A significant proportion of the banks that were bailed out were the Irish operations of British banks, and the UK was lending to protect its own banks.
The UK, while a fully-fledged member of the EU, made a sovereign decision to offer a bilateral loan, at rates and under terms that suited the UK.
It is accepted in Ireland that the banking crisis, while part of a worldwide phenomenon, was not someone else's fault.
But there's nothing wrong with pointing out that one lender set terms for its loan that made early repayment prohibitively expensive, in comparison with the other lenders.
All parties were operating on the basis of self-interest.
The whole EU referendum thingy must baffle the Irish.
The British vote to leave the EU. The Irish vote to murder unborn kiddies.
I guess that's why we are called GREAT Britain.
Okay, I'll bite.
1. Clearly you didn't hear about the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland (or more correctly, the Thirty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland).
2. Also if we're honest, it wasn't "the British" who voted to leave the EU, so much as enough (sort of) eligible voters who turned up and voted to leave the EU.
3. Great Britain is actually the name of the island comprised of most of the nations of England, Wales, and Scotland (I am of course omitting other islands such as the Hebrides, Anglesey and the Isle of Wight for clarity's sake).
4. This is basically part of 3. but I feel you need a bit of help here. The actual name of the nation is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Just putting it out there. Then again, your Hibernophobia may extend to NI, so this could have been a relatively cogent, if xenophobic, conscious decision on your part. I dunno.
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
There is no chance of yours or Farage's idea of an EU army existing in the foreseeable future. However since you are going to get your precious Brexit anyway, perhaps you can now spare a thought for some citizens in other EU countries, so as to understand why such ideas are floated.
Take Estonia. A former Soviet state, punching above its weight in the EU. Putin resents its existence and wants it back. That is why he carries out aggressive manoeuvres hard against their border. Stop for a moment and think about what that must feel like, if you are Estonian. And if it is difficult to imagine, then try and find the excellent Norwegian drama "Occupied" which visualises Russia making a "soft" invasion of Norway. It also depicts the nightmare of the Estonians. In the drama Norway assumes that NATO will come and kick the Russians out. But it doesn't. Why? Because while it doesn't mention him by name, the drama has foreseen what happens when Trump is US President. Europe, especially its smaller countries, cannot trust NATO while Donald Trump is president.. So what do we do? Sit around like rabbits in headlights? Or set about defending ourselves? That is what this is about. Together with the realisation that it is totally unfair and asking for trouble to expect EU countries in the front line against illegal incursions on the external border to do it all themselves. Such activity ought to be paid shared and paid for by all the EU27 together.
So what is actually wrong with the idea of an EU army, in the world of Trump and Putin? Only one thing, as far as I can see: that it will be hellish difficult to actually make it happen.
May calling in the cabinet one by one this evening no doubt to appeal to their loyalty to the Conservative party in as much as resignations and voting against the deal might bring the government down. She’ll tell them that it’s this deal or no deal and crashing out. Not sure if she can win them all over and of course she has more of a job to win over Labour, ERG and the DUP. Exciting 48 hours to come.
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
There is no chance of yours or Farage's idea of an EU army existing in the foreseeable future. However since you are going to get your precious Brexit anyway, perhaps you can now spare a thought for some citizens in other EU countries, so as to understand why such ideas are floated.
Take Estonia. A former Soviet state, punching above its weight in the EU. Putin resents its existence and wants it back. That is why he carries out aggressive manoeuvres hard against their border. Stop for a moment and think about what that must feel like, if you are Estonian. And if it is difficult to imagine, then try and find the excellent Norwegian drama "Occupied" which visualises Russia making a "soft" invasion of Norway. It also depicts the nightmare of the Estonians. In the drama Norway assumes that NATO will come and kick the Russians out. But it doesn't. Why? Because while it doesn't mention him by name, the drama has foreseen what happens when Trump is US President. Europe, especially its smaller countries, cannot trust NATO while Donald Trump is president.. So what do we do? Sit around like rabbits in headlights? Or set about defending ourselves? That is what this is about. Together with the realisation that it is totally unfair and asking for trouble to expect EU countries in the front line against illegal incursions on the external border to do it all themselves. Such activity ought to be paid shared and paid for by all the EU27 together.
So what is actually wrong with the idea of an EU army, in the world of Trump and Putin? Only one thing, as far as I can see: that it will be hellish difficult to actually make it happen.
Ireland have been willing to repay its loans in advance, but the loan from the UK has fixed terms and a severe penalty break clause. Which means that early repayment would cost Ireland more than continuing until the due date for repayment.
Thank you for providing mor evidence that brexit I'd a good thing. The Irish due to financial mismanagement of there own economy have to borrow a load of money and somehow they make it out to be our fault.
The UK will be much better off away from this sort of behaviour.
You do realise that most of the debt accrued by the Irish Government was to bail the banks out, with the Government taking on their bad debts through NAMA and nationalising of some banks?
A significant proportion of the banks that were bailed out were the Irish operations of British banks, and the UK was lending to protect its own banks.
The UK, while a fully-fledged member of the EU, made a sovereign decision to offer a bilateral loan, at rates and under terms that suited the UK.
It is accepted in Ireland that the banking crisis, while part of a worldwide phenomenon, was not someone else's fault.
But there's nothing wrong with pointing out that one lender set terms for its loan that made early repayment prohibitively expensive, in comparison with the other lenders.
All parties were operating on the basis of self-interest.
The whole EU referendum thingy must baffle the Irish.
The British vote to leave the EU. The Irish vote to murder unborn kiddies.
I guess that's why we are called GREAT Britain.
Posts like these really bring home the theory that whilst not all Brexiters are all cretinous thickos, pretty much all cretinous thickos are Brexiters.
The fact people like you got to vote on the future of this fine nation when your posting history strongly indicates you must struggle to tie your own shoes some days is what annoys me most about this whole Brexit malarky.
Ireland have been willing to repay its loans in advance, but the loan from the UK has fixed terms and a severe penalty break clause. Which means that early repayment would cost Ireland more than continuing until the due date for repayment.
Thank you for providing mor evidence that brexit I'd a good thing. The Irish due to financial mismanagement of there own economy have to borrow a load of money and somehow they make it out to be our fault.
The UK will be much better off away from this sort of behaviour.
You do realise that most of the debt accrued by the Irish Government was to bail the banks out, with the Government taking on their bad debts through NAMA and nationalising of some banks?
A significant proportion of the banks that were bailed out were the Irish operations of British banks, and the UK was lending to protect its own banks.
The UK, while a fully-fledged member of the EU, made a sovereign decision to offer a bilateral loan, at rates and under terms that suited the UK.
It is accepted in Ireland that the banking crisis, while part of a worldwide phenomenon, was not someone else's fault.
But there's nothing wrong with pointing out that one lender set terms for its loan that made early repayment prohibitively expensive, in comparison with the other lenders.
All parties were operating on the basis of self-interest.
The whole EU referendum thingy must baffle the Irish.
The British vote to leave the EU. The Irish vote to murder unborn kiddies.
I guess that's why we are called GREAT Britain.
Just a suggestion.
You may wish to amend or delete that message
It really doesn't make anyone seem big or clever..
Well, except, maybe, the Irish, who voted to recognise and take responsibility for the reality of what was happening, so that Ireland would no longer export women, who were/are hugely distressed and unable (for whatever reason) to go through with their pregnancies, to Britain.
I mean, it's not like accepting, as has been the case over the past 30 or so years, that Ireland and the Irish people should take an adult view of their collective responsibilities and that it is for Ireland and the Irish to face their own demons. I, for one, am glad that Irish society has moved on; no longer shaming women, whether by denying their reproductive rights, or seeking to burden them with guilt for becoming pregnant, allowing them be locked away for decades in the Magdalene Laundries or to die in fear and dread of what others might think, as with Ann Lovett in Granard in 1984. And, to be honest, I will be proud of the Irish and Ireland if there are no more Savita Halappanavar's; allowed die because doctors were more scared of the legal consequences of a forced termination than that of letting a 31 year old woman die needlessly.
And, I'll do my best not to suggest that comparing the well-prepared and researched Irish referendum with the circus (both in the Roman and the Fossetts' meaning of the term) of the Brexit variety, doesn't do an awful lot for the United Kingdom (which I believe is what the country is called, at least for now, rather than Great Brtain).
A deal has been pretty much agreed apparently. Emergency cabinet meeting tomorrow.
I may be in a minority, but I would be less sanguine than that.
Assuming last week that the proposed agreement includes a UK-wide Customs Union, a number of the EU27 member states made clear that they would wish to have more time to view and dissect it before it would be agreed (so, not just trusting that their representative offices in Brussels could do that for them). They have major concerns that it amounts to some form of cherry picking, and they will want to avoid that.
I'd be surprised, pleased admittedly, if HMG and Parliament could agree a deal within the UK, and if the deal was something with which the EU27 could live and that they would ratify - even if it falls short of what I would actively want.
Recent history suggests that any outbreak of peace within the Cabinet and Conservative Party, should there be approval of the drafted agreement, is not likely to survive for an awful lot longer than the average fruit fly.
Arthur. We have options to control immigration, used by other EU countries but we choose not to implement them. Leaving EU will not reduce non-EU migrants, indeed likely to increase as French controls removed at Calais etc. Race hate fuelled by right wing press with their own agenda.
I'm sorry for you and the six usual posters who have liked this post. I am aware that borders could be controlled. What makes you think I dont know this?
What you seem to be deliberately ignoring is that despite the ability to control immigration, the Labour policy under Bliar, guided by Mandy and Camby deliberately encouraged uncontrolled immigration. As they themselves have recorded, immigrants tend to vote Labour.
If you cant see that could be a possible cause of the rise of UKIP, then I'm sorry.
If people cant see the rise of UKIP as playing a part in the Brexit vote then I'm sorry. Yes Cameron was stupid beyond belief to believe Remain would win. But to underestimate the impact of a decade of Labour immigration 'policy' and the subsequent incompetent inability of the Tories to limit numbers as they promised is to seriously miss the point.
To then blame a right wing press, not read by traditional Labour voters and so in no way an influence to those voters voting leave, is disingenious and frankly lazy and just plain wrong.
I voted for, and believe in, Remain.
To blame Cameron, or the right wing press, or whatever casual blame game, may make posters on here feel better, but its not the whole story. Its a shame so many on here refuse to see the bigger picture.
Immigrants vote labour and they also offer answers to skills shortages and help suppress wages and associated inflation. This was surely a key factor in the calculation by Labour at that time given how they went down in flames in the 1970s with 26% inflation before Thatcher took over.
But blaming Cameron, Corbyn, Blair or anybody else right now is a deflection from the start of a complex end-game to the Brexit deal. As we enter th crucial Parliamentary debate to process the deal, surely we should look at the angles today and how the transition might run for another couple of years.
Far better to depersonalise and recognise the Cabinet have to agree the May/Barnier deal and then run that through the House of Commons. At that point we will finally see the full backstop including a possible ECJ element (whoops!) since the EU is not going to dilute its sovereignty by allowing a third party to arbitrate on disputes and what represents an adequate replacement for the backstop... [do we hear a cry of vassel state from BoJo]
This deal announcement will be accompanied by a fanfare of publicity and associated feel good factor with markets bouncing but then we will see how the Parliamentary arithmetic pans out. And whether a People's Vote amendment is allowed and perhaps is subsequently supported by Labour. That calculation and associated Labour discussions and announcements will be followed closely. But for some to state that Corbyn and Corbyn alone will decide the strategy is to misunderstand the structure re. the Labour NEC and shadow cabinet as well as the recent conference discussions and composite motion.
Will Labour go for collapsing Parliament support for the deal, thus escalating the risk of no deal which in turn will freak the markets and accelerate either a people's vote, collapse of the May administration and a possible election. Or will they support the deal or the call for a second vote.
We should be clear that a BINO Brexit outcome in 2022 will be relatively harmless and that this can be finalised around 2021. But now is a potential opportunity to take this government out once and for all. Some value EU membership more than changing this government, perhaps because they prioritise the EU above a plethora of other topics which will most probably have more of an impact on the UK (and other western democracies) in the next decade. These topics range from funding the NHS and the demographics plus associated developments in health to productivity, job design and innovation. And then there's military and cyber security as well as stability to the East, Middle East and Africa.
For many the answer has always been a Norway BINO option because leaving the EU actually has a political advantage. But leaving the customs Union / Single Market was simply not on the prospectus back in 2016. For leaving the EU puts the onus on Westminster and the next election to agree the direction of the UK including the long term relationship with the EU, Ireland and rest of the world.
And one final thought: this people's vote campaign is not restricted to the current situation until March 29th. For it is possible that the final deal or put simply, a discussion between Norway and Canada might be decided by the electorate. And that's one way to place 2016 in the rear view mirror. Not ignore it nor claim the result was wrong. But simply suggest that we have a more apposite question to ask: So do we want to be in the North Sea next to the EU or stuck in the middle of the Atlantic with Trump re-elected?
Comments
Such as: trade, the Irish border, the customs union etc. AKA The little things, or perhaps "those little extras" might be more apt?
How many of you were so convinced that the EU army quote from Farage and Co was complete fantasy? Well guess what...Macron calls for it and Merkal mentioned it in the EU parliament today.
Not so much of a fantasy now is it?
And as Rothko shows he was far from a team player during the campaign and we all know why. Paying lip service to a cause he didn't support
Anyway, quick Google search finds not everyone was impressed with The Dear Leader during the campaign
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-denies-went-holiday-8456594.amp
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-36633238
"And documents passed to the BBC suggest Jeremy Corbyn's office sought to delay and water down the Labour Remain campaign. Sources suggest that they are evidence of "deliberate sabotage".
One email from the leader's office suggests that Mr Corbyn's director of strategy and communications, Seumas Milne, was behind Mr Corbyn's reluctance to take a prominent role in Labour's campaign to keep the UK in the EU. One email, discussing one of the leader's speeches, said it was because of the "hand of Seumas. If he can't kill it, he will water it down so much to hope nobody notices it".
A series of messages dating back to December seen by the BBC shows correspondence between the party leader's office, the Labour Remain campaign and Labour HQ, discussing the European campaign. It shows how a sentence talking about immigration was removed on one occasion and how Mr Milne refused to sign off a letter signed by 200 MPs after it had already been approved.
The documents show concern in Labour HQ and the Labour Remain campaign about Mr Corbyn's commitment to the campaign - one email says: "What is going on here?" Another email from Labour Remain sources to the leader's office complains "there is no EU content here - we agreed to have Europe content in it". Sources say they show the leader's office was reluctant to give full support to the EU campaign and how difficult it was to get Mr Corbyn to take a prominent role.
Mr Corbyn has insisted publicly that he campaigned hard to keep the country in the EU and that he made a number of speeches around the country, and attended many campaigning events. But many shadow cabinet ministers believe his performance in the campaign has shown that he is simply not capable of leading the party"
I am aware that borders could be controlled.
What makes you think I dont know this?
What you seem to be deliberately ignoring is that despite the ability to control immigration, the Labour policy under Bliar, guided by Mandy and Camby deliberately encouraged uncontrolled immigration.
As they themselves have recorded, immigrants tend to vote Labour.
If you cant see that could be a possible cause of the rise of UKIP, then I'm sorry.
If people cant see the rise of UKIP as playing a part in the Brexit vote then I'm sorry. Yes Cameron was stupid beyond belief to believe Remain would win. But to underestimate the impact of a decade of Labour immigration 'policy' and the subsequent incompetent inability of the Tories to limit numbers as they promised is to seriously miss the point.
To then blame a right wing press, not read by traditional Labour voters and so in no way an influence to those voters voting leave, is disingenious and frankly lazy and just plain wrong.
I voted for, and believe in, Remain.
To blame Cameron, or the right wing press, or whatever casual blame game, may make posters on here feel better, but its not the whole story. Its a shame so many on here refuse to see the bigger picture.
... great..
Also worth noting, this would likely come under one of the things britain would be able to say "no thanks" when the collection pot comes round. Considering we have an incredible position inside the EU that no other state has.
The British vote to leave the EU.
The Irish vote to murder unborn kiddies.
I guess that's why we are called GREAT Britain.
I think immigration was a huge issue for many, even if in some cases those fears where unfounded they were still fears.
But the big big factor not mentioned here is the recession. If we'd not had the crash in 2008 how much different would the last ten years have looked. I doubt there would have even been a referendum.
1000 years
vassal state
Precious Union
He is as animated as I have seen him.
A perfect storm.
The lack of comprehension by brexiteers has no bounds.
1. Clearly you didn't hear about the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland (or more correctly, the Thirty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland).
2. Also if we're honest, it wasn't "the British" who voted to leave the EU, so much as enough (sort of) eligible voters who turned up and voted to leave the EU.
3. Great Britain is actually the name of the island comprised of most of the nations of England, Wales, and Scotland (I am of course omitting other islands such as the Hebrides, Anglesey and the Isle of Wight for clarity's sake).
4. This is basically part of 3. but I feel you need a bit of help here. The actual name of the nation is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Just putting it out there. Then again, your Hibernophobia may extend to NI, so this could have been a relatively cogent, if xenophobic, conscious decision on your part. I dunno.
But yeah, thought I'd add a few clarifiers.
Take Estonia. A former Soviet state, punching above its weight in the EU. Putin resents its existence and wants it back. That is why he carries out aggressive manoeuvres hard against their border. Stop for a moment and think about what that must feel like, if you are Estonian. And if it is difficult to imagine, then try and find the excellent Norwegian drama "Occupied" which visualises Russia making a "soft" invasion of Norway. It also depicts the nightmare of the Estonians. In the drama Norway assumes that NATO will come and kick the Russians out. But it doesn't. Why? Because while it doesn't mention him by name, the drama has foreseen what happens when Trump is US President. Europe, especially its smaller countries, cannot trust NATO while Donald Trump is president.. So what do we do? Sit around like rabbits in headlights? Or set about defending ourselves? That is what this is about. Together with the realisation that it is totally unfair and asking for trouble to expect EU countries in the front line against illegal incursions on the external border to do it all themselves. Such activity ought to be paid shared and paid for by all the EU27 together.
So what is actually wrong with the idea of an EU army, in the world of Trump and Putin? Only one thing, as far as I can see: that it will be hellish difficult to actually make it happen.
That’ll be this Nigel Farage!
The fact people like you got to vote on the future of this fine nation when your posting history strongly indicates you must struggle to tie your own shoes some days is what annoys me most about this whole Brexit malarky.
Brave new Britain ffs.
You may wish to amend or delete that message
It really doesn't make anyone seem big or clever..
Well, except, maybe, the Irish, who voted to recognise and take responsibility for the reality of what was happening, so that Ireland would no longer export women, who were/are hugely distressed and unable (for whatever reason) to go through with their pregnancies, to Britain.
I mean, it's not like accepting, as has been the case over the past 30 or so years, that Ireland and the Irish people should take an adult view of their collective responsibilities and that it is for Ireland and the Irish to face their own demons. I, for one, am glad that Irish society has moved on; no longer shaming women, whether by denying their reproductive rights, or seeking to burden them with guilt for becoming pregnant, allowing them be locked away for decades in the Magdalene Laundries or to die in fear and dread of what others might think, as with Ann Lovett in Granard in 1984. And, to be honest, I will be proud of the Irish and Ireland if there are no more Savita Halappanavar's; allowed die because doctors were more scared of the legal consequences of a forced termination than that of letting a 31 year old woman die needlessly.
And, I'll do my best not to suggest that comparing the well-prepared and researched Irish referendum with the circus (both in the Roman and the Fossetts' meaning of the term) of the Brexit variety, doesn't do an awful lot for the United Kingdom (which I believe is what the country is called, at least for now, rather than Great Brtain).
Assuming last week that the proposed agreement includes a UK-wide Customs Union, a number of the EU27 member states made clear that they would wish to have more time to view and dissect it before it would be agreed (so, not just trusting that their representative offices in Brussels could do that for them). They have major concerns that it amounts to some form of cherry picking, and they will want to avoid that.
I'd be surprised, pleased admittedly, if HMG and Parliament could agree a deal within the UK, and if the deal was something with which the EU27 could live and that they would ratify - even if it falls short of what I would actively want.
Recent history suggests that any outbreak of peace within the Cabinet and Conservative Party, should there be approval of the drafted agreement, is not likely to survive for an awful lot longer than the average fruit fly.
But blaming Cameron, Corbyn, Blair or anybody else right now is a deflection from the start of a complex end-game to the Brexit deal. As we enter th crucial Parliamentary debate to process the deal, surely we should look at the angles today and how the transition might run for another couple of years.
Far better to depersonalise and recognise the Cabinet have to agree the May/Barnier deal and then run that through the House of Commons. At that point we will finally see the full backstop including a possible ECJ element (whoops!) since the EU is not going to dilute its sovereignty by allowing a third party to arbitrate on disputes and what represents an adequate replacement for the backstop... [do we hear a cry of vassel state from BoJo]
This deal announcement will be accompanied by a fanfare of publicity and associated feel good factor with markets bouncing but then we will see how the Parliamentary arithmetic pans out. And whether a People's Vote amendment is allowed and perhaps is subsequently supported by Labour. That calculation and associated Labour discussions and announcements will be followed closely. But for some to state that Corbyn and Corbyn alone will decide the strategy is to misunderstand the structure re. the Labour NEC and shadow cabinet as well as the recent conference discussions and composite motion.
Will Labour go for collapsing Parliament support for the deal, thus escalating the risk of no deal which in turn will freak the markets and accelerate either a people's vote, collapse of the May administration and a possible election. Or will they support the deal or the call for a second vote.
We should be clear that a BINO Brexit outcome in 2022 will be relatively harmless and that this can be finalised around 2021. But now is a potential opportunity to take this government out once and for all. Some value EU membership more than changing this government, perhaps because they prioritise the EU above a plethora of other topics which will most probably have more of an impact on the UK (and other western democracies) in the next decade. These topics range from funding the NHS and the demographics plus associated developments in health to productivity, job design and innovation. And then there's military and cyber security as well as stability to the East, Middle East and Africa.
For many the answer has always been a Norway BINO option because leaving the EU actually has a political advantage. But leaving the customs Union / Single Market was simply not on the prospectus back in 2016. For leaving the EU puts the onus on Westminster and the next election to agree the direction of the UK including the long term relationship with the EU, Ireland and rest of the world.
And one final thought: this people's vote campaign is not restricted to the current situation until March 29th. For it is possible that the final deal or put simply, a discussion between Norway and Canada might be decided by the electorate. And that's one way to place 2016 in the rear view mirror. Not ignore it nor claim the result was wrong. But simply suggest that we have a more apposite question to ask: So do we want to be in the North Sea next to the EU or stuck in the middle of the Atlantic with Trump re-elected?