Did you see her Goldie? Any time she had to venture away from Lynton Crosby's soundbites, she seemed more weak and wobbly than strong and stable.
Yeah, I did see her, and on Peston. I've known actuaries that are more exciting speakers, but she has a reputation for mastering her briefs, and being exacting in negotations.
I firmly believe that Britain will prosper very well outside the EU after an initial period of 2-3 years where many obstacles will need to be overcome. Many of these I suspect will be placed in our way by the vindictiveness of the EU. I also believe that the people of Europe will eventually reject the continued political union of the EU and the dominance of Germany and that the whole thing will come tumbling down. This will also affect us no doubt, but then, we shouldn't have gone along with this political experiment for so long imo. I may be wrong of course and we may suffer for many, many years. I'd still accept this, as I don't think it will be anywhere near as bad as the worst predictions we hear and I voted leave accepting it may make me worse off for a while. I suppose my answer shows that I don't have a scooby mate, much like pretty much everyone else. I voted on a principle though and I stand by it.
I've never heard of this guy, he's got REMAIN written on his forehead (and his Irish accent makes me think he may also have the interests of the Emerald Isle at heart), he seems obsessed with May calling the election when previously academics have come out complaining that May was unelected and had no mandate to be pm...and if all that isn't enough, I don't trust someone who can't say exacerbate I cannot believe Government hasn't got specialised EU lawyers all over the case like a rash. You know the old saying. Put two lawyers in a room, you end up with three opinions...
It's a clear and direct response Col, respect and thanks. As I have said many times your principle is the most logical reason for getting out (and the one which Tony Benn and Enoch Powell agreed on even if I don't personally). For the record I think the core of the EU is too entrenched to collapse, but it may morph into something different which I would welcome (perhaps even something that you might not be so against). Even with the hardest of hard Brexits our world won't collapse overnight, and it may be difficult to attribute whatever problems we encounter directly to leaving the EU. I don't believe the EU will be vindictive, they will simply look after their own interest, just like we are trying to do.
I was amongst those that were saying she should call an election, but she should have done it as soon as she became PM. To repeatedly say that she would not and then flip-flop is weakness, not strength. It seems to me her U-turn had a lot to do with the upcoming CPS decisions. What I really resent, though, is the implication that any criticism of her approach to Brexit is somehow unpatriotic. You would hope that the government does have its own experts on EU law. You would hope, too, that it would listen to all of them, not just those that say what it wants to hear.
Some people seem to believe that this election is timed to avoid dealing with the CPS review of the evidence of illegal expenditure in the 2015 election. I think that OH MY, LOOK AT THAT DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE! See? Works every time...
Calling the election now is probably opportunism but that's politics. It's not weakness if she gets a huge mandate. It's a big test for her. I can't say about the upcoming CPS decisions. The media seem pretty quiet about them.
Haven't heard much on SKY either. I guess it's not news unless and until the CPS make the decision to prosecute
Politicians are repeatedly badgered to change course by their opponents because they are heading in the wrong direction or pursuing the wrong policies. Then, as soon as one does change course or their mind, they are vilified for it. It happens on all sides of the political divide. It could be a sign of weakness or it could be a strength, to realise that one is wrong and to change one's mind. Or to simply change your view as the political landscape changes.
Goldie said she was intractable, as if that was to be admired. When the facts change, you should change your mind. I don't have a problem with that. What facts changed here, other than the potential CPS charges against sitting Tory MPs?
So it seems that Mrs May's initial negotiating position is: EU citizens in the U.K. will have exactly the same rights as........non EU citizens in the U.K. The UK does not owe the EU a penny The UK can pick and choose about access to the Single Market, just like she did with opt out and opt in home office related stuff when she was Home Secretary. All discussions and position papers must be held in secret Whereas the EU says: EU citizens should retain their current rights including access to free healthcare and benefits The UK owes the EU c€65bn as a result of agreements entered into in good faith There can be no cherry picking on the Single Market. When you were Home Secretary the UK was in the EU, irrelevant comparison now you want to leave. As the European Parliament needs to ratify everything, papers need to and will be published. So either May has been incredibly badly briefed and believes she can get these things, or she has been told that the way to negotiate is to start as far away from your negotiating partners as possible (which Goldie tells me happens every day in the High Court) rather than to seek areas of easy agreement and build on them (which is the way most businesses do it, without resorting to the law). I can only assume that she wants secrecy to avoid the British public seeing how much she has given way from her starting position, which has now been revealed so we will know anyway. To lighten the atmosphere she has also blocked any discussion of the EU budget (they are seeking to strengthen spending on security, border control and police cooperation) on the grounds that her government is in purdah due to the election campaign and can't make any decisions in that period. But she wants to continue discussions about Brexit. To which the EU has responded that makes no sense, we'll talk again after 8 June, you are either in purdah or you aren't. Omnishambles!
Discussions on these type of highly contentious issues are usually dealt with in confidence so both parties build trust each other. The aid to your man, Junckers, has decided to go out to the media with his version. Great for entente. If I had a £ for every £100 million claim that settles quietly for £2 million, I'd be almost as rich as Tony Blair
