Worst Golf club ever

this is why the eu should try to minimise the bill. the uk net contribution is something like 0.3% of gdp more or less like all the other rich countries. it's so little that nobody should give a **** about it, but everything with a few zeros behind it will make the tabloid readers go mental.

like that sweet girl with a lack of self worth that thinks people only like her because she sucks dick, the uk seems to think the rest of the eu only wants it for the money. it really isnt about that.

it's also just incredibly gauche to spend this much energy arguing about money

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7716751.html

She's full of ****, tories dgaf about anyone that would be affected by getting the ****ty end of the stick from EU.

Do you even know what those words mean? Seems like you're just randomly quoting some buzz words from the snowlake manual.

I'm a Scot. Living in Scotland. Who is not voting for the SNP.

Since you've obviously never heard of them that's the Scottish NATIONALIST party. The only nationalist party standing. Not voting for them.

Now please read a book or speak to a friend about uk politics and educate yourself a little.

N.B The right only seems so far because the loony left has moved so far from the centre ground

Loony Left>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Centre>>>>Right

Untrue. The Labour party was historically much more millitant and openly marxist. It was, after all, founded by the trade unions.

It was only under Blair that it completely abandoned that and became a corporate-friendly party with no principles other than pragmatism and a sort of bland liberalism.

Corbyn represents something of a return to the party's origins but even his most radical proposals do not represent a return to the statist policies of the party during its heyday. Many on the left of the party don't particulary care for his focus on liberal issues-gay rights and all that are all very well, but it wasn't what the party was founded for.

The conservative party has by contrast moved from one-nation paternalism to increasingly messianic neoliberal freemarket policies. Most political theorists would describe this as becoming more "extreme". Though some describe it as a sort of radical socialism for the rich.

Well of course. Welcome to the real world where political opinions are more than just a fashion accessory.

The "admit" and "concede" stuff is just Independent remain spin though. Here's more of what she said:

Now of course Farron, May and Corbyn have very different ideas about what "getting the negotiation right" means as do people ITT, ranging from negotiating a withdrawal of A50 notification and continuing in the EU as a prelude to joining the euro currency, right through to refusing to agree to anything that would in any way impact on out ability to cut deals with the other 90% of the world. She's right when she says the stakes are massive though.

So that's twice recently the Independent has given you a false impression of what's going on. Maybe time to switch?
BBC coverage of the same speech: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39787353
Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics...neral-election both pro-Remain but not fake news.

The BBC is controlled by the government. All of the front-line personnel any one can name who have expressed a political affiliation are tories.

The Guardian is supposed to be left-wing but it supported Nick Clegg (as if Gordon Brown were some kind of Marxist firebrand). It has tried to stab Corbyn in the back repeatedly.

Who can you trust? You can't. Owning media requires money. A lot of money. Corbyn would take their money away. The media hate him. I suspect even the Independent will end up going for Farron.

I read her quotes, I'm a big boy lol. She's campaigning for the upcoming election.

My point stands though, she and her party dgaf about who will be worst affected by brexit. Tory bastards don't care about the working man, never have.

I generally you can't trust anyone. It's always best to get as close as you can to the original source.

I'm more suggesting those two as they seem to have less fake news than the Independent but still with roughly the same political agenda so it may be realistic for someone to switch.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39816044

Juncker doubling down on election interference:

His thesis is also pretty dumb. This from the annual report of the Slovak Foreign ministry, which held the EU Presidency this year:

Removing the UK isn't going to change much in this regard.

it wasnt a thesis it was a joke. and the usual suspects are going nuts because theyre dumb as ****

Unfortunately politards seem very very poor at humour except against the other side.

Junker even got a laugh for this one.

He should have known what would happen.

At the moment every day in the news it is "Brave St.Theresa battles eurocrats". It is going to give her a strong mandate. Juncker should really keep his mouth shut, he is destroying those forces in Britain that are sympathetic to him.

true. and it's something eu officials have always been annoyingly bad at.

otoh nobody cares about what british voters think anymore, which is betraying the 48% a bit but also just how it is.

I don't blame them frankly but Juncker has a bit more responsibility than most. I don't doubt the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs us but it is certainly not going to help any one to bolster the right here.

I'm not sure any one cares about this stuff in France but I would personally avoid saying anything that might help Marine Le Pen.

Varoufakis is very charming but I don't think his comments on UK politics are credible. Under the "Macron" candidate, Tony Blair, Britain went to war repeatedly and killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of foreigners, mostly at the behest of the US.

You have to bear these things in mind when you talk about an alliance against racism or fascism.

Additionally, the discipline of progressive unity fractured in 2010 because the "progressive" liberal democrat candidate, Nick Clegg, did a deal with the Tories resulting in an aggressive right-wing government.

There are complexities involved in the UK which are very different from the straight run-off vote that pitted Chirac vs Le Pen.

In terms of the EU negotiations there is a big difference with Greece.

Basically Greece went to the EU and said "Everyone knows we have no intention of paying off our debts or starting to live within our means, we can't find anyone who is dumb enough to buy bonds from us, our own citizens would lol if we tried to sell them bonds because they know the situation even better than outsiders do, so the countries of the eurozone, including ones whose average wage is lower than the amount we give to unemployed people, have to pay for us to keep going and we'll try to save some money here and there." Amazingly this was accepted by the eurozone (except Slovakia and Slovenia though Juncker solved the problem using his status as an intellectual titan by saying "I'm not listing to you")

Four years later, Greece came again and said "We're tired of trying to even have a vague balance, and the citizens are still saying 'lol' about the idea of putting their own life savings into Greek government debt, so we've had a referendum in favour of the existence of foreigners who want to lend us money with no conditions. If you ignore us by failing to exist then you are anti-democracy."

The UK has a more to offer in negotiations and is also in a better position to walk away with no deal, whereas Greece needed to stay in the EU and was and is getting a fantastic deal as a middle income country by EU standards receiving all this money from richer and poorer members.

That's a very unfair description that misses the point.

The larger countries in the Eu agreed to help Greece because it was in their own interest. The Germans benefit enormously from having the euro: if they were an independent country the deutschemark would be extremely strong meaning they couldn't export and that would make their industry less competitive as it is in the UK.

In the EU they get the benefit of a strong economy without the downside of a strong currency.

Greece by contrast would benefit greatly from ditching the euro. Its tourist sector in particular would blossom overnight as it could make a profit on rock-bottom drachma based prices. To keep small nations in subsidy is required and to everyone's mutual benefit.

Note that this happens all the time in the US and it is barely mentioned.

As usual with your posts I stopped reading at the first sentence.

It's a hopelessly one dimensional and childish analysis that reaches this conclusion simply because the BBC is funded from a licence fee set by the Government, when its charter compels it to strive for impartiality.

How old are you?

Some of us can remember when it came under ferocious attack from the 1980s Tories for its unbiased reporting during the Falklands War, and a watershed statement being read out on the BBC News asserting its independence.

What may or may not have happened three decades ago is not relevant to what is happening now.

The directors, the board, frontline news team and reporters are significantly over-represented by conservatives.

The news has been dominated by right-wing agenda setting. We had, for several months, a story every day about immigration during the syrian/libyan/north african mass exodus. There was no reason for it: the government wasn't letting any of those people in.

By contrast the total privitization of nation health trusts went unreported: I doubt any one outside the NHS even knows it happened.

It is not entirely the BBC's fault: it knows that it would lose the licence fee if it annoys the government. Labour has no leverage by contrast.

... and during the Blairite era they were over-represented by New Labourites.

That's not evidence of actually toeing the government line in its programmes.

No, the evidence of anti-corbyn bias is contained in meticulous studies which have already been posted repeatedly on this forum.

But, you know, one suspects that if question time was headed by a shop steward and the front line news staff were all graduates of the morning star you'd be having a hissy fit about that. Regardless of whether they were actually impartial or not.

Are "right" and "left" still useful labels anyway?

The well-paid people in the BBC are fairly right wing in terms of paying tax on their money, but they are also into the "right on" agenda, which is traditionally seen as a left-wing thing, - I have a page open now, suggested links are

"Fighting for equality in big-wave surfing."

"The midwife who saved intersex babies."

which is typical of the choice of non-news fillers you get on there. Brexit itself is harder to classify in terms of left and right but the left-wing side of Bremoaning, is definitely a "right-on" one. So overall the BBC has its agenda but it doesn't neatly classify as left or right.

I dont agree with him on everything. Posted it because I thought others would also find it interesting and amusing.

But 100% with him on Le Pen. The far right coming to power would be a disaster far beyond even the worst excesses of the mainsteam parties. It's horrific enough that she might well get 40% but that at least remains a potential catastrophe waiting to happen which we still might avoid.