But lots of people are making up a load of old toss and aren't being held to any standards. That's not a good thing. Alex Jones, who has millions of followers, has claimed that Hillary Clinton is a demon. Not figuratively, he's literally claiming that she's an actual demon. This is what people are viewing as news.
Interesting case before the High Court at present concerning the Government's attempt to trigger Brexit by using ancient powers under the royal prerogative rather than seeking authorisation by a vote in parliament. The lead applicant is Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, who is supported by many other applicants trying to prevent the Government from triggering Article 50 without having a vote. The effect of the referendum is argued to be no more than an advisory poll and of no binding legal consequence. The outcome will be significant - because will Brexit get through parliament at a vote? Doubtful.
That twat donald tusk's going about it the wrong way though to get us to remain. Basically boasting that he's got us over a barrel. It's twats like him doing that that tipped the balance to leave in the first place.
No he didn't. Here is everything Tusk said about Britait, from his speech which can be read in full here: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/10/13-tusk-speech-epc/ Finally, let's move on to Brexit. As for the negotiations, the situation is pretty clear. Its framework will be set out by the European Council - that is by the guidelines foreseen in the Treaty. Our task will be to protect the interests of the EU as a whole and the interests of each of the 27 member states. And also to stick unconditionally to the Treaty rules and fundamental values. By this I mean, inter alia, the conditions for access to the single market with all four freedoms. There will be no compromises in this regard. When it comes to the essence of Brexit, it was largely defined in the UK during the referendum campaign. We all remember the promises, which cumulated in the demand to "take back control". Namely the "liberation" from European jurisdiction, a "no" to the freedom of movement or further contributions to the EU budget. This approach has definitive consequences, both for the position of the UK government and for the whole process of negotiations. Regardless of magic spells, this means a de facto will to radically loosen relations with the EU, something that goes by the name of "hard Brexit". This scenario will in the first instance be painful for Britons. In fact, the words uttered by one of the leading campaigners for Brexit and proponents of the "cake philosophy" was pure illusion: that one can have the EU cake and eat it too. To all who believe in it, I propose a simple experiment. Buy a cake, eat it, and see if it is still there on the plate. The brutal truth is that Brexit will be a loss for all of us. There will be no cakes on the table. For anyone. There will be only salt and vinegar. If you ask me if there is any alternative to this bad scenario, I would like to tell you that yes, there is. And I think it is useless to speculate about "soft Brexit" because of all the reasons I've mentioned. These would be purely theoretical speculations. In my opinion, the only real alternative to a "hard Brexit" is "no Brexit". Even if today hardly anyone believes in such a possibility. We will conduct the negotiations in good faith, defend the interests of the EU 27, minimise the costs and seek the best possible deal for all. But as I have said before, I am afraid that no such outcome exists that will benefit either side. Of course it is and can only be for the UK to assess the outcome of the negotiations and determine if Brexit is really in their interest. Paraphrasing Hannah Arendt's words: "a full understanding of all the consequences of the political process is the only way to reverse the irreversible flow of history". Thank you. What Tusk is saying is not "We have you over a barrel" no matter how loudly the Mail's mentalist interpretation of his speech proclaims that's what he said. What he's saying is that the idea that far too many people in British politics have about how the UK will be able to cherry pick the things they liked about EU membership while jettisoning the things they didn't like - aka have their cake and eat it - is fundamentally unrealistic, and that any politician believing they can get some super-duper deal is at best naive and at worst incompetent. Coincidentally, those are words that can be used to describe the likes of Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Amber Rudd, Priti Patel et al
I've been following the course of this for some time. Yes, it is important. I think either way it will go to the Supreme Court for a final decision. It's too important a constitutional point not to. Will it stop Brexit? In my view no. No MP who values his position is going to ignore the clear wishes of the people. After all, if you are prepared to turn over one vote from the public, what other decisions are you prepared to vote down? Will it slow it up? Almost certainly if it's in any way successful. Which with GEs coming in both Germany & France next year would not be a bad thing.
No, it says 'you've laid yourself over a barrel - and you pulled down your pants before you did so to allow clear access for a right royal shafting!'......
The purpose of the statement being what ? It's a negotiating tactic. It's saying, "you're ****ed without us. You have no option for soft brexit, so unless you want us to **** you over that barrel, you better put your EU trousers on and get back over here". Without the statement we might well do that, but with it, we are only more likely to turn around and say, "**** off". Which is exactly what we did when we voted the day after he gave us a similar threat.
Whatever........ Personally I have no faith in the bunch of jokers who a) got us into the mess in the first place and b) are now tasked with negotiating the exit. They need no help from a few misinterpreted comments from EU officials to **** the country over. They are doing that perfectly well on their own. I would agree that had the EU taken a less aggressive stance over the renegotiation this would have burst some of the Brexiters balloons, but equally the EU response was always going to be defensive of the majority membership.
Where does it come close to saying that? He says that Theresa May is trying to have her cake and eat it, and that's a direct quote, and he is not wrong in saying that - as that is not just the position she has taken since becoming our Unelected Prime Minister, but it was also the stance the likes of Boris, Farage and Gove were taking in the leadup to the vote. Would you walk into your boss' office, drop your trousers and pissing his coffee cup and then ask for a raise? Of course you wouldn't - yet may et al somehow think they can, and this is utterly deluded on their part. More importantly, Tusk is thinking of both Britain and the rest of the EU - while May isn't even thinking of Britain, instead she's pushing her square agenda through the Britait round hole, so if anyone is saying that we've got you over a barrel it's May with her "Brexit means Brexit" mantra - even though that mantra genuinely doesn't mean anything, to the point so she may as well have stood at the dispatch box and say "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious means Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"
Why is he saying it ? Do you think he is trying to surupticiously give Theresa May free advice ? Is he just shooting the breeze with his EU constituents ?
There's two straightforward and entirely justifiable reasons for his speech. 1.) As president of the European Council, it's his job Here is a direct quote from the European Council's website as to what their role is: The European Council is one of the 7 EU institutions. However, it is not one of the EU's legislating bodies, so does not negotiate or adopt EU laws. Instead its main role is to determine the EU's general political direction and priorities - essentially setting the policy agenda for the EU. Traditionally, this is done by adopting conclusions during each European Council meeting. These conclusions identify specific issues of concern for the EU and outline particular actions to take or goals to reach. European Council conclusions can also set a deadline for reaching agreement on a particular item or for the presentation of legislative proposal. In this way, the European Council is able to influence and guide the EU's policy agenda. In addition to this, here are the five priorities of the European Council * Jobs, growth and competitiveness * Empowering and protecting citizens * Energy and climate policies * Freedom, society and justice * The EU as a strong global actor Britait clearly falls within this remit - to be specific the first and second bulletpoint on the list, which are now tangled up into one large bundle as a result of Amber Rudd causing all manner of Godwin's Law violations when she proposed employment guidelines straight out of Mein Kampf. When there's a swivel-eyed loon saying that qualified EU nationals should be overlooked for jobs they are qualified for because their parents happened to have sex on the opposite side of the channel, decreasing the amount of jobs and increasing unemployment based on the accident of birth, that's something for the European Council to address - especially when Theresa May is acting as if the UK can still trade with the EU as if everything is the same as it always was. ii.) It is the role of the European Policy Centre, who he was addressing Here's the EPC's mission statement, taking from their website The European Policy Centre (EPC) is an independent, not-for-profit think tank dedicated to fostering European integration through analysis and debate, supporting and challenging European decision-makers at all levels to make informed decisions based on evidence and analysis, and providing a platform for engaging partners, stakeholders and citizens in EU policy-making and in the debate about the future of Europe. Similarly, here are the priorities of the EPC * Independence and transparency * Excellence, relevance and innovation * Cross-cutting and long-term solutions * Multi-constituency and inclusive * Partnerships What is the subject that requires the higher-ups to make an informed decision or six, which requires a long-term solution to benefit all parties? Britait. There's no agenda, it's someone doing their job - sort of like Poch talking about West Brom in his press conferences this week.
Look, i'll concede, but based purely on the fact that the commitment you've put in to that post deserves nothing less.
Hopefully he wasn't followed by someone giving a speech demanding free breast implants for all Romanian pornstars...
Am I wrong in saying laughing boy Ted Heath got us in to Europe in the first place and we were paying the price in pounds seemingly for ever. Did our Ted get a free pad on the Riviera for getting us in it (over our heads!?).
