Leroy42 wrote: » You've got to hand it to May, she is some survivor. The can kicking is really something to behold.
Leroy42 wrote: » All very true Sam, but what is her option. Tell him to feck off, that he should stop or she won't be friends? Do you think that will make Trump change? Or will it leave the UK swinging in the wind at a time that it is looking very likely to crash out of its current trading relationship with the EU. It may well end up losing out anyway, but at least she needs to keep up the appearance that they have a relationship
Deleted User wrote: » https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1586968 The UK have their job advertisement up for creating and leading the team for airspace negotiations. About time.
Open to UK, Commonwealth and European Economic Area (EEA) and certain non EEA nationals.
ambro25 wrote: » UK could lose £10bn a year in City-related tax revenue after Brexit. ... Accessorily, that is Boris and Theresa’s “dividend” walking straight out the door early, £ms and £ms at a time: small brooks eventually make big rivers.
Rees-Mogg DEMOLISHES Verhofstadt's claim that EU cannot flex its 'SACROSANCT' rules for UK BREXITEER Jacob Rees-Mogg dismantled the European Union's negotiating strategy, telling EU Brexit coordinator Guy Verhofstadt there is "considerable evidence" the bloc ignored its own rules to reach an agreement on previous occasions.
It appears the UK is hardest hit – with only one major CO2 plant operating as we go to press. Very reliant on imports from Scandinavia and also the Netherlands – the UK is doubly impacted in that there are limited movements across the Channel due to the plant shut-downs in the Benelux and France limiting product to ship.
He said it would take the entire two-year transition period, which is due to kick in after Brexit on 29 March 2019, to sort out the details of future trading relations between the EU and UK. But he warned MPs that it would take a lot longer if the political statement published in the autumn was not clear enough about what kind of relationship the EU was going to have with the UK.
Leroy42 wrote: » JRM makes the point that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them, he uses the example of them allowing bailouts when Maasstrict stated it couldn't. His position being that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them so why are they holding out in the negotiations.
Leroy42 wrote: » This is the headline and opening paragraph in the Express this evening; Rees-Mogg DEMOLISHES Verhofstadt's claim that EU cannot flex its 'SACROSANCT' rules for UK BREXITEER Jacob Rees-Mogg dismantled the European Union's negotiating strategy, telling EU Brexit coordinator Guy Verhofstadt there is "considerable evidence" the bloc ignored its own rules to reach an agreement on previous occasions. JRM makes the point that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them, he uses the example of them allowing bailouts when Maasstrict stated it couldn't. His position being that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them so why are they holding out in the negotiations. Verhofstadt gave a bit of a waffley answer, but my bet is that inside he was screaming "why the hell should we? You feckers caused all this mess and now you want us to change for you". But being a diplomat he merely said they couldn't.
Leroy42 wrote: » This is the headline and opening paragraph in the Express this evening; JRM makes the point that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them, he uses the example of them allowing bailouts when Maasstrict stated it couldn't. His position being that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them so why are they holding out in the negotiations. Verhofstadt gave a bit of a waffley answer, but my bet is that inside he was screaming "why the hell should we? You feckers caused all this mess and now you want us to change for you". But being a diplomat he merely said they couldn't.
Sam Russell wrote: » The use of religious designations for voters is suspect. Are they self declared, or assumed?
Sam Russell wrote: » The term 'Catholic', 'Nationalist', 'Republican', or for the other side - 'Protestant', 'Unionist', 'Loyalist' are used by different pundits to mean different things - quite often a graded distinction.
Sam Russell wrote: » It is like the adverts that declare - '85% of cats that showed a preference, chose our Tiddles cat food' without saying how many cats did not show a preference. I wonder how many respondents did not declare their religion or the way they voted? Lies, damn lies, and poll results.
Trasna1 wrote: » I don't think we can get on our high horse with regards to Trump. If he were visiting Ireland, the Irish government wouldn't rescind the invitation.
Leroy42 wrote: » This is the headline and opening paragraph in the Express this evening . . . JRM makes the point that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them, he uses the example of them allowing bailouts when Maasstrict stated it couldn't. His position being that the EU can bend the rules when it suits them so why are they holding out in the negotiations.
Leroy42 wrote: » So the rebellion turned out to be nothing, swept aside when the potential of having a new election and losing TM as PM was no doubt put to them. In the end they sided with the Tory party. So now the government can go ahead on the basis of getting no deal. The Express (I know not a surprise) seems to take this almost gleefully. Finally the UK can hold the threat of No-Deal over the heads of the the EU to get what they want. Of course they have always been holding that threat, this vote hadn't changed that it was an attempt to try to give parliament a voice to stop a no deal should it happen. And having that threat certainly is something to have, although I would question the value they are placing on it. There is little doubt that the EU do not want a no deal scenario, and as such will try to avoid it within reason. Unfortunately, TM has painted red lines down all the areas that the EU would be looking for any concessions from the UK in return for a deal and so there appears little that the EU can actually offer them, save for some small things like access to Galileo, Eurotron etc. But the risk to the UK of a No Deal to the UK is immeasurably worse, both in absolute and % terms. Even the UK have produced reports that show just how bad it would be, and the EU know that. So how much of a threat is it really? It like a bank robber saying he will kill himself unless he gets given the plane by the cops, but they will have to clean up the blood! I don't understand why the UK cannot see this. i get the usual position that one must always have point at which you ware prepared to walk away, but that doesn't always hold true.
But like Farage, JRM does speak for what a lot of people believe
Mezcita wrote: » Juncker in the Dail now.https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/dail-eireann-live/ "Ireland's border is Europe's border and it is our priority".
Laois_Man wrote: » So disingenuous, it's nauseating! Surely everyone knows we're just a stick for them to beat the EU dissident Brits with!!
Water John wrote: » One suspects Laois Man is being ironic.
“We are considering solutions and it’s possible to say there are technical solutions, but once again we haven’t been able to discuss them with the UK,” he told the Freight Trade Association conference in London."
J Mysterio wrote: » Its looking very bleak for NI.