Witzkatz wrote:
Yes, in the video she's just re-telling the threats and hatemail she's getting, which is where she simply quoted those threats literally. I'm also quite astounded by the multiple tweets demanding an apology.

Some people's ears are quite selectively sensitive, I'd presume.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Yes, in the video she's just re-telling the threats and hatemail she's getting, which is where she simply quoted those threats literally. I'm also quite astounded by the multiple tweets demanding an apology.

Some people's ears are quite selectively sensitive, I'd presume.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Yes, in the video she's just re-telling the threats and hatemail she's getting, which is where she simply quoted those threats literally. I'm also quite astounded by the multiple tweets demanding an apology.

Some people's ears are quite selectively sensitive, I'd presume.

At 10am on a mainstream breakfast show?
Maybe true that most kids at school etc and such but still, on live tv, in a morning. Not worst but not thr best idea live on morning tv to millions potentialy.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Yes, in the video she's just re-telling the threats and hatemail she's getting, which is where she simply quoted those threats literally. I'm also quite astounded by the multiple tweets demanding an apology.

Some people's ears are quite selectively sensitive, I'd presume.

At 10am on a mainstream breakfast show?
Maybe true that most kids at school etc and such but still, on live tv, in a morning. Not worst but not thr best idea live on morning tv to millions potentialy.

Not optimal, perhaps, yes. But let's not kid ourselves, the amount of kids innocently asking their moms what these weird words mean will be far below the amount of adults complaining on twitter about it.

 Jadenim wrote:
Actually promoting a conversation that gets adults to explicitly tell kids that this language is unacceptable and you should never use it is probably a good thing.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Plus, I thought FREE SPEECH was really important and an integral part of a democratic society etc etc etc?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Plus, I thought FREE SPEECH was really important and an integral part of a democratic society etc etc etc?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Dianne Abbot has said lots of stupid things, but this is not one of them. I don't get why this is such a controversy.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Children should be in school at the time this goes out so that shouldn't be a problem. I don't think pre-schoolers watch This Morning.

 Ketara wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41289080

Bojo demonstrating:

a) just how out of the loop he's being kept on Brexit,
b) why he should never be in any position of power, and
c) that he's really not as smart as one might think he is.

 Ketara wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41289080

Bojo demonstrating:

a) just how out of the loop he's being kept on Brexit,
b) why he should never be in any position of power, and
c) that he's really not as smart as one might think he is.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Is this something that the EU would accept, or will they reject it? I've seen it mooted that May knows they'll reject the offer and so we'll leave anyway on WTO rules and she can pin blame on the EU.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Our two strongest cards we could play was money and the threat of walking away from the negotiations. May blinked.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Will we even be able to sign new trade deals with non-EU countries during the transition? If we can't, we'll be sitting with our thumbs up our rears and valuable time will go down the pan.

This could be a shambles

Mario wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Our two strongest cards we could play was money and the threat of walking away from the negotiations. May blinked.

I don't know what exactly money mean in this context (payments for access of the single market or other benefits?) but walking away is not a threat to the EU. From what I remember overall economic transaction between the UK and EU are highly unbalanced in favour of the EU so walking away would hurt the UK much more than the EU. I think the EU is about 50% of the UKs international transaction while the UK is about 10% of the European mainland's transactions. It would be a small but not insignificant problem for the EU but for the UK that would be much harsher situation (especially if some companies also were to relocate their offices/factories from the UK to the EU for the single market access).

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Will we even be able to sign new trade deals with non-EU countries during the transition? If we can't, we'll be sitting with our thumbs up our rears and valuable time will go down the pan.

This could be a shambles

I think you can't sign deals while part of the EU (because the UK is part of the EU). It's the bit Merkel had to explain Trump a dozen times or so. For those deals the EU is the level at which the negotiations happen and non-EU countries can't single out anybody to abuse with some lopsided dead (that's a benefit of being a small country inside the EU). Negotiations, I don't know. Maybe the UK can negotiate for the case of "if Brexit happens" but who knows which country/group (besides the UK) is interested in that. Other things probably have a higher priority than making contingency plans in case the UK leaves the EU. Technically (not realistically) the decision is still reversible, isn't it?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...This could be a shambles

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...
As always with the Tories, party before country. This is nothing more than a Tory ploy to win a 2021 general election on a pledge to take us out of the EU, ...

Will we even be able to sign new trade deals with non-EU countries during the transition? If we can't, we'll be sitting with our thumbs up our rears and valuable time will go down the pan.

This could be a shambles

The UK's credit rating has been cut over concerns about the UK's public finances and fears Brexit could damage the country's economic growth.
Moody's, one of the major ratings agencies, downgraded the UK to an Aa2 rating from Aa1.
It said leaving the European Union was creating economic uncertainty at a time when the UK's debt reduction plans were already off course.
Downing Street said the firm's Brexit assessments were "outdated".
The other major agencies, Fitch and S&P, changed their ratings in 2016, with S&P cutting it two notches from AAA to AA, and Fitch lowering it from AA+ to AA.
Moody's said the government had "yielded to pressure and raised spending in several areas" including health and social care.
It says revenues were unlikely to compensate for the higher spending.
The agency said because the government had not secured a majority in the snap election it "further obscures the future direction of economic policy".
It also said Brexit would dominate legislative priorities, so there could be limited capacity to address "substantial" challenges.
It added "any free trade agreement will likely take years to negotiate, prolonging the current uncertainty for business".
Moody's has also changed the UK's long-term issuer and debt ratings to "stable" from "negative".
Moody's stripped Britain of its top-notch AAA rating in 2013.
The government said the latest downgrade followed a meeting on 19 September, and did not consider the prime minister's speech on Friday, in which she outlined her vision for Brexit.
"The prime minister has just set out an ambitious vision for the UK's future relationship with the EU, making clear that both sides will benefit from a new and unique partnership," it said.
"The foundations on which we build this partnership are strong."
It said it had a robust economic record and had made substantial progress in reducing the deficit.
"We are not complacent about the challenges ahead, but we are optimistic about our bright future."
Credit rating agencies, in essence, rate a country on the strength of its economy - scoring governments or large companies on how likely they are to pay back their debt.
A rating downgrade can affect how much it costs governments to borrow money in the international financial markets. In theory, a high credit rating means a lower interest rate, and vice versa.

It added "any free trade agreement will likely take years to negotiate, prolonging the current uncertainty for business".
Moody's has also changed the UK's long-term issuer and debt ratings to "stable" from "negative"

 Jadenim wrote:
And so the farce continues.

I would challenge any Brexiteer to look me in the eye and tell me hand on heart do you really believe that, right now, as we stand our country is better off? Do you really think this vast amount of time, money and effort wouldn't be better spent dealing with the substantial issues in this country.

With problems like wage stagnation, housing shortages, failing public services and a stuttering economy, is this ridiculousness really the top priority for our politicians, civil service and media?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
And so the farce continues.

I would challenge any Brexiteer to look me in the eye and tell me hand on heart do you really believe that, right now, as we stand our country is better off? Do you really think this vast amount of time, money and effort wouldn't be better spent dealing with the substantial issues in this country.

With problems like wage stagnation, housing shortages, failing public services and a stuttering economy, is this ridiculousness really the top priority for our politicians, civil service and media?

We can always deal with those issues, but getting out of the EU was now or never. There was never going to be an opportune time to do it. You just had to do it before it became impossible. Juncker's speech made it clear that the status quo was never an option, that it was always going to be more integration.

It's also a pity May had to go and feth it all up by blinking first.

 Ketara wrote:
May's initiation of a transition period is to be welcomed, not derided. It took Canada seven years to undertake a handcrafted trade agreement with the EU, and whilst it should be easier for us (given we already comply with all existing EU legislation), everyone was beginning to run short of time. Everyone on both sides of the fence here needs a functional set of accords, or everybody gets hurt. Given David Cameron's throwing of toys from the cot, and May's decision to play election instead of getting on with things, a large amount of the preset time for negotiations was lost to no good purpose.

Yet here we are. It has been patently clear for some time now that more time was needed. So May's decision to cast the first stone in establishing a transitory state of affairs is consequently being openly welcomed by all parties involved. Only those with political agendas (be it brexiteering furiously or rock throwing at the Tories) are bemoaning what is ultimately, a very practical and necessary decision.

This is a positive sign for the negotiations ahead. Even the EU has officially recognised that 'six months after the triggering of article 50, it appears that the position of the UK is becoming more realistic' (Guy Verhofstadt yesterday). The European side has also begun to outline what they are after (namely an association agreement) and hinted at their preference potentially being to keep Northern Ireland specifically inside the Customs Union. These are good indications for a starting point for the diplomatic wrangling.

Things are actually beginning to progress. It is a good sign.

 reds8n wrote:

Will we even be able to sign new trade deals with non-EU countries during the transition? If we can't, we'll be sitting with our thumbs up our rears and valuable time will go down the pan.

This could be a shambles

If only all these blatantly obvious truths had been pointed out before !?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41369239

The UK's credit rating has been cut over concerns about the UK's public finances and fears Brexit could damage the country's economic growth.
Moody's, one of the major ratings agencies, downgraded the UK to an Aa2 rating from Aa1.
It said leaving the European Union was creating economic uncertainty at a time when the UK's debt reduction plans were already off course.
Downing Street said the firm's Brexit assessments were "outdated".
The other major agencies, Fitch and S&P, changed their ratings in 2016, with S&P cutting it two notches from AAA to AA, and Fitch lowering it from AA+ to AA.
Moody's said the government had "yielded to pressure and raised spending in several areas" including health and social care.
It says revenues were unlikely to compensate for the higher spending.
The agency said because the government had not secured a majority in the snap election it "further obscures the future direction of economic policy".
It also said Brexit would dominate legislative priorities, so there could be limited capacity to address "substantial" challenges.
It added "any free trade agreement will likely take years to negotiate, prolonging the current uncertainty for business".
Moody's has also changed the UK's long-term issuer and debt ratings to "stable" from "negative".
Moody's stripped Britain of its top-notch AAA rating in 2013.
The government said the latest downgrade followed a meeting on 19 September, and did not consider the prime minister's speech on Friday, in which she outlined her vision for Brexit.
"The prime minister has just set out an ambitious vision for the UK's future relationship with the EU, making clear that both sides will benefit from a new and unique partnership," it said.
"The foundations on which we build this partnership are strong."
It said it had a robust economic record and had made substantial progress in reducing the deficit.
"We are not complacent about the challenges ahead, but we are optimistic about our bright future."
Credit rating agencies, in essence, rate a country on the strength of its economy - scoring governments or large companies on how likely they are to pay back their debt.
A rating downgrade can affect how much it costs governments to borrow money in the international financial markets. In theory, a high credit rating means a lower interest rate, and vice versa.

It added "any free trade agreement will likely take years to negotiate, prolonging the current uncertainty for business".
Moody's has also changed the UK's long-term issuer and debt ratings to "stable" from "negative"

... can we feel the control yet ?



...
.'A permanent transition': what a perfectly British fudge.

.. so... we think May will even be in power 2 years or so down the line ?


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michael-gove-accused-of-suppressing-secret-report-into-brexit-food-price-rises_uk_59c4cd9ce4b06ddf45f6eaa9?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004


much like all the other ones they didn't bother releasing or reading perhaps ?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-this-decision-is-brexit-in-a-nutshell/

word.

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...This could be a shambles

There is no "could be", this is a shambles. The whole thing is a shambles, because it's the result of muddied, unclear thinking and hyperbole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...
As always with the Tories, party before country. This is nothing more than a Tory ploy to win a 2021 general election on a pledge to take us out of the EU, ...

Again, this has always been the case. Everyone knows that we only had this fething stupid vote to try and solidify tory power. The timing for this is perfect, we "leave" just before the general election, giving plenty of ammo for a new project fear about how Labour are the party of fiscal irresponsibility in this new era, despite it being proved that it is the Tories who have consistently fethed up the economy, as they are doing right now.
Even if they are voted out, the new Government has to steer the choppy waters of sorting out all the new trade agreements, which means that they will be ripe for an electoral kicking and will eventually restore the conservatives to "fix" things all over again.

This will continue until IQ tests are mandatory for voting, Rupert Murdoch is deported, and the Daily Mail and Express are found guilty of contempt and their entire editorial staff are imprisoned, assets liquidated, burned or melted down for scrap.



...and Farage finally disappears up his own capacious arsehole.

 Jadenim wrote:
And so the farce continues.

I would challenge any Brexiteer to look me in the eye and tell me hand on heart do you really believe that, right now, as we stand our country is better off? Do you really think this vast amount of time, money and effort wouldn't be better spent dealing with the substantial issues in this country.

With problems like wage stagnation, housing shortages, failing public services and a stuttering economy, is this ridiculousness really the top priority for our politicians, civil service and media?