Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Hunt makes a leadership move that he says is not a move – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 15 in General
imageHunt makes a leadership move that he says is not a move – politicalbetting.com

The main story on the front page of The Times this morning is a piece about Jeremy Hunt who was the health secretary in Theresa May’s government and of course, was the one who reached the final two in the leadership election 3 years ago.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,187
    Test
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Douglas Ross and most of his team immediately blamed Partygate for their dreadful result last week (losing 23% of their councillors). But the evidence does seem to point to the underlying poor economic situation as being the bigger factor. Hunt is far from alone in his take.

    I don’t think it is “mid-term Blues”. If BJ leads his party into the GE (and I think he will), then he will lead them into defeat.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,596
    It's not exactly subtle, but still quite an adroit throwing of his hat in the ring without being full on disloyal.
    He's got his name in ahead of the other contenders without burning any bridges. And the rest are gagged by being in the cabinet.

    Any Tory with sense knows that Boris has to go well before the next election.
    Though that's very far from a majority of the party.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,596
    (FPT)
    Dura_Ace said:

    Farooq said:



    It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.

    Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...

    And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ?
    'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    The Labour Party in North Lanarkshire appear to have done a deal with the Conservatives and the sole British Unionist Party councillor (the first member of the party, founded 7 years ago, ever to achieve elected office).

    Although not a “coalition”, which Anas Sarwar has forbidden, it is going to be merrily portrayed as such to the general public. Sometimes one wonders if the Scottish Labour Party has a death wish.

    Result 2022 - North Lanarkshire

    Scottish National Party 36 councillors (+3)
    Labour 32 councillors (nc)
    Conservative and Unionist Party 5 councillors (-5)
    British Unionist Party* 1 councillor (+1)
    Greens 1 councillor (+1)
    Independents 2 (nc)

    39 needed for a majority and Lab+Con+BUP is only 38, so they need at least one Independent too.

    (*The BUP seem rather keen on abolishing Holyrood and going back to Direct Rule from London. An uncommon position these days, but polling suggests that perhaps up to 10% of the electorate want this. Sufficient base on which to build a new party? No, probably not.)
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Nothing about the Next Con Leader market says imminent election to me. The FAV, Truss, is a long 7/1; and 13 people are shorter than 50/1. This is a typical pattern for events that are a long way off and nobody has a clue how things are going to pan out.

    If anyone out there is privy to important information then feel free and utilise those generous prices. But ordinary punters beware: if you are not in the know then keep well away from this type of market. (Judging by the idiotic Next Labour Leader market, my advice is comprehensively ignored.)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,334
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Dura_Ace said:

    Farooq said:



    It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.

    Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...

    And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ?
    'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
    Dura_Ace is being silly.

    According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, Ukraine is #122 in the world, and Russia #136.

    That is not good. Bur Ukraine has had two decades of Russian interference with its politics, and now militarily: it has not been fully free from interference.

    IMV Russia is the problem, not Ukraine. If Ukraine is 'free' after this war is over, the country can go two ways: it could continue being a corrupt state, or it could embrace openness and fight corruption.

    There will be significant carrots for them to do the latter - especially if reconstruction funds are contingent on it. In addition, there will hopefully be a situation where Russians methods of doing things are rejected in favour of more western ways.

    But I reckon the Ukrainian people want it as well - Zelensky was elected on a platform of anti-corruption.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 2,713
    Jeremy Hunt will not be an MP after the next election.

    Unless things change drastically the LibDems will win South West Surrey from the tories. Dominic Raab will also lose his seat.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 2,713
    edited May 13
    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,966
    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 2,713

    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
    That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.

    I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,166
    Encryption is under attack from the EU as well as the Home Office.

    Europe proposes tackling child abuse by killing privacy, strong encryption
    https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/12/eu_encryption_csam/

    Meanwhile, encryption is applauded for helping Ukraine against Russia.

    one of the lesser known features of SpaceX's Starlink internet service, point to point email service for Starlink users encrypted and not using any ground infrastructure whatsoever, has aided Ukrainian military units behind Russian lines to communicate
    https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1523828147397042177

    Won't someone think of the children? But not Ukrainian children, obviously.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,261
    FPT: Apparently calling someone a 'baldy' amounts to sexual harassment - just as well there are no prominent members of the PB fraternity who are follicularly challenged enough to merit such abuse.....

    We have all been warned!
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027

    The Labour Party in North Lanarkshire appear to have done a deal with the Conservatives and the sole British Unionist Party councillor (the first member of the party, founded 7 years ago, ever to achieve elected office).

    Although not a “coalition”, which Anas Sarwar has forbidden, it is going to be merrily portrayed as such to the general public. Sometimes one wonders if the Scottish Labour Party has a death wish.

    Result 2022 - North Lanarkshire

    Scottish National Party 36 councillors (+3)
    Labour 32 councillors (nc)
    Conservative and Unionist Party 5 councillors (-5)
    British Unionist Party* 1 councillor (+1)
    Greens 1 councillor (+1)
    Independents 2 (nc)

    39 needed for a majority and Lab+Con+BUP is only 38, so they need at least one Independent too.

    (*The BUP seem rather keen on abolishing Holyrood and going back to Direct Rule from London. An uncommon position these days, but polling suggests that perhaps up to 10% of the electorate want this. Sufficient base on which to build a new party? No, probably not.)

    One wonders how Anas approached the SCons re their N. Lanarkshire 'arrangement'?

    'Look, you're a decomposing corpse stinking the place out under your zombie Lord Boris so we can't be in a public coalition, but let's talk..'


    A year is a long, long time in politics.

    'Anas Sarwar makes 'open and big offer' to work with SNP Government'

    https://tinyurl.com/54ak69yn
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,409
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. JohnL, it's always baffling when this sort of nonsense comes up. I remember the UK Government (forget which one) mulling the idea of a backdoor to every encryption in the country to help the police.

    As if hackers wouldn't use such a thing. It'd be like having a door key under every plant pot and expecting burglars not to take advantage.

    And politicians sometimes forget that non-criminals (ie most people) find encryption bloody useful.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027
    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
    That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.

    I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.

    You’ve never seen Lib Dem hype before?! That settles it: you are very, very young.

    I’ve seen at least 5 waves of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem victorious advances. They all ended in tears.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 2,713

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
    That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.

    I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.

    You’ve never seen Lib Dem hype before?! That settles it: you are very, very young.

    I’ve seen at least 5 waves of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem victorious advances. They all ended in tears.
    This is an example of the kind of supercilious posting which gets me down about this place. Why the need to be snide about what is, otherwise, a good point?

    I've witnessed many LibDem surges but I'm telling you, because I live here, that I have never seen such on the ground LibDem movement as is happening in Surrey. They are really on the move here: so active, so many new posters popping up, prominent people declaring their hand.

    Ignore me if you like but my last tip on the LibDems in Surrey did NOT "end in tears". I told you they would win control of Woking council and in the end the results weren't even close.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,334
    Incidentally, whilst running through Histon earlier this week, I came across a garden that had a stack of orange Lib Dem diamonds on top of posts leaning against a wall.

    And yesterday a place in Huntingdon still had a couple of largish Conservative posts in their garden.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027
    Pleasingly retro looking drone. Stick a pilot between the engines and it could be a 1920s bomber.


  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,775

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,286

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Sounds like Red Wall syndrome has spread to Essex
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
    That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.

    I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.

    You’ve never seen Lib Dem hype before?! That settles it: you are very, very young.

    I’ve seen at least 5 waves of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem victorious advances. They all ended in tears.
    This is an example of the kind of supercilious posting which gets me down about this place. Why the need to be snide about what is, otherwise, a good point?

    I've witnessed many LibDem surges but I'm telling you, because I live here, that I have never seen such on the ground LibDem movement as is happening in Surrey. They are really on the move here: so active, so many new posters popping up, prominent people declaring their hand.

    Ignore me if you like but my last tip on the LibDems in Surrey did NOT "end in tears". I told you they would win control of Woking council and in the end the results weren't even close.
    I sincerely hope that you are correct (I think you probably are), but I am extremely jaded when it comes to the Lib Dems. They are the kings of post-cognitive dissonance.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,467
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Dura_Ace said:

    Farooq said:



    It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.

    Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...

    And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ?
    'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
    I think that "decades" is perhaps a bit long, but the economic adjustments to bring Ukraine's economy up to European standards should not be underestimated. Then there is the issue of agriculture and free movement, quite apart from the disputed borders.

    Certainly Ukraine is motivated to do so, and has decisively moved into a European rather than Soviet mindset. I think it will get special status and reconstruction aid during the accession process, but full membership with FoM will take a decade. I expect the rest of the Balkans will be in soon too.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,195
    Ooh, he is soooooo close to figuring it out...

    Chancellor Rishi Sunak says the Brexit settlement in Northern Ireland is causing harm

    https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1524988996937560065
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,467
    Scott_xP said:

    Ooh, he is soooooo close to figuring it out...

    Chancellor Rishi Sunak says the Brexit settlement in Northern Ireland is causing harm

    https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1524988996937560065

    I saw him interviewed on C4 News. He is a good communicator. Hard to believe that he has so completely trashed his opportunity.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,195
    Foxy said:

    Hard to believe that he has so completely trashed his opportunity.

    He hitched his wagon to BoZo. Nobody has ever profited from doing that (except perhaps a Russian spy)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,908
    "Northern Ireland has always been part of Great Britain"
    I believe that statement is 100% correct though ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939
    Pulpstar said:

    "Northern Ireland has always been part of Great Britain"
    I believe that statement is 100% correct though ?

    It's 100% wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland, not part of Great Britain!
  • GreenHeronGreenHeron Posts: 144
    I've said it before and I'll say it again - there's nothing in the recent local election results that point towards a change of government.

    Looking back over the years and especially at similar points in the electoral cycle, the closest comparisons to 2022 seem to be 2003 and 1986. The losses were comparable, the popular vote share was comparable - yet as we all know, Iain Duncan Smith and Neil Kinnock never became PM. The subsequent elections were comfortable wins for the governing party.

    There is no comparison with 2008, ahead of a change of government, where the Conservative lead over Labour was double figures. There's not even a comparison with 1990, though of course there was a change of PM ahead of the 1992 election.

    Does that mean that Labour can't win the next election? Of course not. 2 years is a long time in politics, especially in the current atmosphere, and especially with Johnson as PM. But the current signs to me continue to point towards a reduced Conservative majority.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Love the comment in the Twitter thread, that some people are "proudly thick". Yup. Angrily pronouncing from a position of utter ignorance with absolute conviction. And that is why we have a Tory majority of 80.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,198
    Scott_xP said:

    Ooh, he is soooooo close to figuring it out...

    Chancellor Rishi Sunak says the Brexit settlement in Northern Ireland is causing harm

    https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1524988996937560065

    I can remember when not being able to blame our problems on the EU was proudly touted as a benefit of Brexit.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,971
    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Love the comment in the Twitter thread, that some people are "proudly thick". Yup. Angrily pronouncing from a position of utter ignorance with absolute conviction. And that is why we have a Tory majority of 80.
    Indeed yes. What Labour were thinking when they elected such a person leader remains one of life's mysteries.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,170
    edited May 13

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
    That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.

    I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.

    You’ve never seen Lib Dem hype before?! That settles it: you are very, very young.

    I’ve seen at least 5 waves of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem victorious advances. They all ended in tears.
    All true of course, but the past is not a reliable guide to the future + something has to occur, and an LD rise, based on the peculiarities of socio-economics of certain areas is not to be discounted.

    On current trajectories by the next GE it's quite possible that the collective alchemy of the middling centrists in England and Wales will coalesce around the best option being a Lab/LD government. It is one of the handful of options (maybe the only one) that is reasonably stable and moderate.

    The Tories need time to regroup. Labour can't win 126 extra seats. Scotland is lost for now. The vital thing is that SKS or his successor doesn't blow it. Burgon and a few friends could lose the whole thing in moments if they try.

    It would be sad if Hunt, who epitomises a sane Tory future, became collateral damage.

  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,775

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    The funny thing about your comment is that it says nothing about leave voters, but an awful lot about you.
    Chillax Mr Man!
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,559
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Northern Ireland has always been part of Great Britain"
    I believe that statement is 100% correct though ?

    It's 100% wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland, not part of Great Britain!
    And politically - when there was a Kingdom of Great Britain after the Union of Crowns, it was part of the Kingdom of Ireland.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    Pleasingly retro looking drone. Stick a pilot between the engines and it could be a 1920s bomber.


    Paging @biggles ...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,195
    Jacob Rees-Mogg has four officials/advisers with him for his morning interviews about axing a fifth of the civil service. He says that is because he covers a "wide area of public policy" and adds two are special advisers & two are from the Cabinet Office.
    https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1524998980396109824
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939
    Scott_xP said:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg has four officials/advisers with him for his morning interviews about axing a fifth of the civil service. He says that is because he covers a "wide area of public policy" and adds two are special advisers & two are from the Cabinet Office.
    https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1524998980396109824

    Very Sir Humphrey. 'Because I'm reducing staff it creates more work so I have to take staff on.'
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745
    Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.

    UK government arguments amount to:
    "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was
    "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh!
    "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?

    Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.

    But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.
  • JonWCJonWC Posts: 209
    I see Parish is thinking about standing as an independent. Likely to cost £500 quid so just as well he claims to have financial backers. LibDem candidate is utterly unknown in the constituency even to LibDems so that's not a brilliant start.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Northern Ireland has always been part of Great Britain"
    I believe that statement is 100% correct though ?

    It's 100% wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland, not part of Great Britain!
    And politically - when there was a Kingdom of Great Britain after the Union of Crowns, it was part of the Kingdom of Ireland.
    It was also briefly part of the Irish Free State in 1922 (for one month).
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745
    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.

    And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,775
    edited May 13
    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    I'm "foren" and I knew the difference when I was 5.

    Yes, I know the education system in this country and the educational aspiration of the majority of the working class are poor, but do we just allow people to get away being ignorant thick sh*ts.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 27,713
    Good morning everybody.

    O/t, but a random thought struck me the other day; in the event of the next GE turn ng o8t rather lie the last set of locals, is there a scenario in which the Tories are the largest party but the PM loses his seat?

    I know there's a PM boost, it's never happened, but there's always a first time.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,028
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Northern Ireland has always been part of Great Britain"
    I believe that statement is 100% correct though ?

    It's 100% wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland, not part of Great Britain!
    It’s even in the name of the country: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,151
    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    It's a pretty crucial error in any discussion whatsoever of NI and its constitutional position. A bit like getting your Persian Gulf geography wrong.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,467

    Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.

    UK government arguments amount to:
    "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was
    "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh!
    "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?

    Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.

    But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.

    The only tenable solutions to NI are Irish Unification and proper Brexit, or Rejoining. Time we got on with it.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 2,605
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Northern Ireland has always been part of Great Britain"
    I believe that statement is 100% correct though ?

    It's 100% wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland, not part of Great Britain!
    And politically - when there was a Kingdom of Great Britain after the Union of Crowns, it was part of the Kingdom of Ireland.
    It was also briefly part of the Irish Free State in 1922 (for one month).
    And part of the Irish Republic (recognised only by Russia) 1919-22
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,151
    edited May 13

    Pleasingly retro looking drone. Stick a pilot between the engines and it could be a 1920s bomber.


    IIRC Lerwick Tingwall is a single runway strip, ditto Unst. I'm slightly surprised it can land in Shetland given the effect of side winds on that empennage. Possibly it's takeoff and landing runs are so short it can do it across the runway in a crosswind?

    Edit: on second thoughts, can those undercarriage legs castor sideways like a B-52's?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745
    Carnyx said:

    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    It's a pretty crucial error in any discussion whatsoever of NI and its constitutional position. A bit like getting your Persian Gulf geography wrong.
    The problem is that the guy isn't stupid - just profoundly ignorant. He made a clear argument even though it was built on a complete lack of understand of both his own country and the thing he voted for in 2019.

    The problem we all have is that this government have championed ignorance. Weaponised stupidity. They don't want people to know how things work or even what the government they voted for and still support has done. They want them to remain ignorant because its easier to get away with stuff (like massive PPE corruption and ennobling the KGB) and makes them easier to manipulate.

    So as always apply the Jabes O'Brien rule. Compassion for the conned (the QT bloke) and contempt for the conmen.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530

    Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.

    UK government arguments amount to:
    "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was
    "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh!
    "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?

    Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.

    But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.

    It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.

    Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,971

    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.

    And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
    Yes, yes - I'm aware that his utterance of "always" is a mistake as well. Criticise the substance of his point.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745

    Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.

    UK government arguments amount to:
    "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was
    "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh!
    "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?

    Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.

    But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.

    It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.

    Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
    With respect, you are one of the people who make bold statements on this subject from a position of profound legal and diplomatic ignorance.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,195
    Update: Labour won this Tiverton town council by-election last night. The LibDems didn't stand. https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1524758403624718340
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,584
    edited May 13
    algarkirk said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
    That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.

    I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.

    You’ve never seen Lib Dem hype before?! That settles it: you are very, very young.

    I’ve seen at least 5 waves of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem victorious advances. They all ended in tears.
    All true of course, but the past is not a reliable guide to the future + something has to occur, and an LD rise, based on the peculiarities of socio-economics of certain areas is not to be discounted.

    On current trajectories by the next GE it's quite possible that the collective alchemy of the middling centrists in England and Wales will coalesce around the best option being a Lab/LD government. It is one of the handful of options (maybe the only one) that is reasonably stable and moderate.

    The Tories need time to regroup. Labour can't win 126 extra seats. Scotland is lost for now. The vital thing is that SKS or his successor doesn't blow it. Burgon and a few friends could lose the whole thing in moments if they try.

    It would be sad if Hunt, who epitomises a sane Tory future, became collateral damage.

    ".... it's quite possible that the collective alchemy of the middling centrists in England and Wales will coalesce around the best option being a Lab/LD government. "

    The middling centrists in England -- there are not many in Wales -- have believed that the best option is a Lab/LD government at every election in my lifetime.

    It has never happened.

    It never happens because the landing strip is tiny. Either the plane overshoots the runaway, or the landing is in wet & stormy weather so the plane skids, or the pilot gets drunk and bottles it.

    The past is a reliable guide to the future.

    And also, the very last thing the UK needs is "the collective alchemy of the middling centrists" transmuting base metals into feck-all in Government.

    The temper of the times is not right for middling blandness.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,596
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
    That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.

    I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.

    You’ve never seen Lib Dem hype before?! That settles it: you are very, very young.

    I’ve seen at least 5 waves of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem victorious advances. They all ended in tears.
    This is an example of the kind of supercilious posting which gets me down about this place. Why the need to be snide about what is, otherwise, a good point?

    I've witnessed many LibDem surges but I'm telling you, because I live here, that I have never seen such on the ground LibDem movement as is happening in Surrey. They are really on the move here: so active, so many new posters popping up, prominent people declaring their hand.

    Ignore me if you like but my last tip on the LibDems in Surrey did NOT "end in tears". I told you they would win control of Woking council and in the end the results weren't even close.
    Stuart is resident overseas, so you have to allow for his perceptions of the UK being slightly off occasionally.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,028

    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.

    And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
    Now you are being a bit harsh (in your first paragraph at least, not the second). If I say A has always been a part of B because A has been a part of B since A came into being then I think that is reasonable. It would be the same as someone saying “I’ve always lived in London”; no one reasonable would respond “so you’ve been here since the Romans then?” They would be assumed to have lived in London all their life.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530

    Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.

    UK government arguments amount to:
    "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was
    "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh!
    "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?

    Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.

    But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.

    It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.

    Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
    With respect, you are one of the people who make bold statements on this subject from a position of profound legal and diplomatic ignorance.
    With respect, I can read the text and please tell me where "unforeseen" is mentioned?

    Article 16
    Safeguards
    1. If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental
    difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom
    may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be
    restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to
    remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the
    functioning of this Protocol.
    2. If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in
    accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under
    this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such
    proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority
    shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol.
    3. Safeguard and rebalancing measures taken in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be
    governed by the procedures set out in Annex 7 to this Protocol.


    Unilateral safeguard measures may be taken if there is diversion of trade, or societal problems likely to persist. That is all it says, it doesn't say unforeseen problems.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313

    The Labour Party in North Lanarkshire appear to have done a deal with the Conservatives and the sole British Unionist Party councillor (the first member of the party, founded 7 years ago, ever to achieve elected office).

    Although not a “coalition”, which Anas Sarwar has forbidden, it is going to be merrily portrayed as such to the general public. Sometimes one wonders if the Scottish Labour Party has a death wish.

    Result 2022 - North Lanarkshire

    Scottish National Party 36 councillors (+3)
    Labour 32 councillors (nc)
    Conservative and Unionist Party 5 councillors (-5)
    British Unionist Party* 1 councillor (+1)
    Greens 1 councillor (+1)
    Independents 2 (nc)

    39 needed for a majority and Lab+Con+BUP is only 38, so they need at least one Independent too.

    (*The BUP seem rather keen on abolishing Holyrood and going back to Direct Rule from London. An uncommon position these days, but polling suggests that perhaps up to 10% of the electorate want this. Sufficient base on which to build a new party? No, probably not.)

    One wonders how Anas approached the SCons re their N. Lanarkshire 'arrangement'?

    'Look, you're a decomposing corpse stinking the place out under your zombie Lord Boris so we can't be in a public coalition, but let's talk..'


    A year is a long, long time in politics.

    'Anas Sarwar makes 'open and big offer' to work with SNP Government'

    https://tinyurl.com/54ak69yn
    These Labour/Conservative deals make perfect sense for the Conservatives, but they are mind-bogglingly idiotic from a Labour perspective. Yes, you gain some (very minor) short-term local power, but in the long-term they are just sabotaging their own brand.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,151

    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.

    And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
    Now you are being a bit harsh (in your first paragraph at least, not the second). If I say A has always been a part of B because A has been a part of B since A came into being then I think that is reasonable. It would be the same as someone saying “I’ve always lived in London”; no one reasonable would respond “so you’ve been here since the Romans then?” They would be assumed to have lived in London all their life.
    Team GB is a very well-known example of the distinction between GB, UK and NI.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,999
    edited May 13
    Will GB go against the roughly 55-30 will of the people of NI, so they can save Boris by restarting Brexit war against Europe? Big decision, bigger than whether the liar lied or not, because it will probably begin a united front of the new majority to seek an alternative European alignment.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530
    Carnyx said:

    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.

    And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
    Now you are being a bit harsh (in your first paragraph at least, not the second). If I say A has always been a part of B because A has been a part of B since A came into being then I think that is reasonable. It would be the same as someone saying “I’ve always lived in London”; no one reasonable would respond “so you’ve been here since the Romans then?” They would be assumed to have lived in London all their life.
    Team GB is a very well-known example of the distinction between GB, UK and NI.
    Is it? There's no Team Northern Ireland.

    Northern Irish athletes compete as a part of Team GB.

    Northern Irish athletes can choose to be part of Team GB, or Team Ireland, their choice just as their citizenship is their choice.

    The Unionists consider themselves British and they compete in Team GB. As far as the public is concerned yes NI is a part of Britain and its splitting hair semantics to say otherwise.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,596
    edited May 13
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Dura_Ace said:

    Farooq said:



    It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.

    Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...

    And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ?
    'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
    I think that "decades" is perhaps a bit long, but the economic adjustments to bring Ukraine's economy up to European standards should not be underestimated. Then there is the issue of agriculture and free movement, quite apart from the disputed borders.

    Certainly Ukraine is motivated to do so, and has decisively moved into a European rather than Soviet mindset. I think it will get special status and reconstruction aid during the accession process, but full membership with FoM will take a decade. I expect the rest of the Balkans will be in soon too.

    Which is why I noted the examples of all the post Soviet states that joined at the start of this century. They were hardly either incorrupt or economically advanced.

    I think Ukraine is possibly better placed (assuming post war reconstruction aid) than were they.
    Within a decade isn't impossible.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    EPG said:

    Will GB go against the roughly 55-30 will of the people of NI, so they can save Boris by restarting Brexit war against Europe? Big decision, bigger than whether the liar lied or not, because it will probably begin a united front of the new majority to seek an alternative European alignment.

    This might be it, the beginning of the decisive shift in the tectonic plates.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,028
    Carnyx said:

    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.

    And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
    Now you are being a bit harsh (in your first paragraph at least, not the second). If I say A has always been a part of B because A has been a part of B since A came into being then I think that is reasonable. It would be the same as someone saying “I’ve always lived in London”; no one reasonable would respond “so you’ve been here since the Romans then?” They would be assumed to have lived in London all their life.
    Team GB is a very well-known example of the distinction between GB, UK and NI.
    Oh, I agree with that. I was looking at what would have happened if he had said “NI has always been a part of the UK”.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745

    Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.

    UK government arguments amount to:
    "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was
    "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh!
    "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?

    Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.

    But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.

    It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.

    Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
    With respect, you are one of the people who make bold statements on this subject from a position of profound legal and diplomatic ignorance.
    With respect, I can read the text and please tell me where "unforeseen" is mentioned?

    Article 16
    Safeguards
    1. If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental
    difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom
    may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be
    restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to
    remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the
    functioning of this Protocol.
    2. If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in
    accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under
    this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such
    proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority
    shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol.
    3. Safeguard and rebalancing measures taken in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be
    governed by the procedures set out in Annex 7 to this Protocol.


    Unilateral safeguard measures may be taken if there is diversion of trade, or societal problems likely to persist. That is all it says, it doesn't say unforeseen problems.
    Indeed. And we have *already* taken those measures. So we can't legally trigger A16 to enact things that have already been enacted. But that's just what the lawyers say, what would they know?

    Again, you do come across like the QT contributor, making bold statements that just don't work. I know you don't know why they won't work but that's because you aren't a lawyer. Thats why we have lawyers so that laypeople like me and thee can be protected from making a mess of ourselves by failing to understand the law.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,467
    Nigelb said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
    That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.

    I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.

    You’ve never seen Lib Dem hype before?! That settles it: you are very, very young.

    I’ve seen at least 5 waves of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem victorious advances. They all ended in tears.
    This is an example of the kind of supercilious posting which gets me down about this place. Why the need to be snide about what is, otherwise, a good point?

    I've witnessed many LibDem surges but I'm telling you, because I live here, that I have never seen such on the ground LibDem movement as is happening in Surrey. They are really on the move here: so active, so many new posters popping up, prominent people declaring their hand.

    Ignore me if you like but my last tip on the LibDems in Surrey did NOT "end in tears". I told you they would win control of Woking council and in the end the results weren't even close.
    Stuart is resident overseas, so you have to allow for his perceptions of the UK being slightly off occasionally.
    I have ben an LD (or LIB/SDP) voter most of my adult life, but Stuart is right. The enthusiasm for the party evaporates under FPTP at GEs and may well do so again.

    Betting against LD at a GE is fairly safe perennial strategy.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530

    Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.

    UK government arguments amount to:
    "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was
    "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh!
    "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?

    Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.

    But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.

    It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.

    Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
    With respect, you are one of the people who make bold statements on this subject from a position of profound legal and diplomatic ignorance.
    With respect, I can read the text and please tell me where "unforeseen" is mentioned?

    Article 16
    Safeguards
    1. If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental
    difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom
    may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be
    restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to
    remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the
    functioning of this Protocol.
    2. If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in
    accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under
    this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such
    proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority
    shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol.
    3. Safeguard and rebalancing measures taken in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be
    governed by the procedures set out in Annex 7 to this Protocol.


    Unilateral safeguard measures may be taken if there is diversion of trade, or societal problems likely to persist. That is all it says, it doesn't say unforeseen problems.
    Indeed. And we have *already* taken those measures. So we can't legally trigger A16 to enact things that have already been enacted. But that's just what the lawyers say, what would they know?

    Again, you do come across like the QT contributor, making bold statements that just don't work. I know you don't know why they won't work but that's because you aren't a lawyer. Thats why we have lawyers so that laypeople like me and thee can be protected from making a mess of ourselves by failing to understand the law.
    We haven't taken those measures, we've taken some measures and have been in negotiations to resolve the problems always explicitly retaining the right to unilaterally implement more measures just as the Article explicitly gives us the right to do.

    A bunch of lawyers with an axe to grind like Jolyon don't make themselves right.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Leon said:

    The Telegraph is asking “will Russia invade Finland”

    I strongly suspect the answer is No, but still. Disquieting

    If the answer is Yes, and Boris Johnson doesn’t break another international treaty, then the UK is shortly going to be at war with Russia.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 5,661

    Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.

    UK government arguments amount to:
    "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was
    "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh!
    "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?

    Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.

    But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.

    What was the bit of the GATT agreement that some fanboys were convinced would give the UK the cake'n'eatit trade deal it wanted? There was that interview with Andrew Neill where BoJo was utterly skewered in the subject.

    Is "Trigger A16" the next pretend magic wand? What endpoint do the trigger happy crew want to happen as a result? How likely is that outcome?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 3,943
    I see little chance of Jeremy Hunt losing his seat to the Lib Dems unless he’s sunk by a personal scandal. You can’t compute across from neighbouring seats. Woking council in particular has been beset by alleged corruption for years. Even in Woking it’s far from clear the swing will translate to a particularly close general election result. South West Surrey there’s next to no chance of a Lib Dem gain and the party would be foolish to expend much activity trying when there are more obvious targets.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,596
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg has four officials/advisers with him for his morning interviews about axing a fifth of the civil service. He says that is because he covers a "wide area of public policy" and adds two are special advisers & two are from the Cabinet Office.
    https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1524998980396109824

    Very Sir Humphrey. 'Because I'm reducing staff it creates more work so I have to take staff on.'
    And similarly minister for something pointless.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,195

    Is "Trigger A16" the next pretend magic wand? What endpoint do the trigger happy crew want to happen as a result? How likely is that outcome?

    Indeed.

    the same folk who said the oven ready deal was brilliant, that Brexit would be sunshine and rainbows, are now saying if we break International treaties all will be well.

    I remain unconvinced
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745
    Carnyx said:

    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.

    And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
    Now you are being a bit harsh (in your first paragraph at least, not the second). If I say A has always been a part of B because A has been a part of B since A came into being then I think that is reasonable. It would be the same as someone saying “I’ve always lived in London”; no one reasonable would respond “so you’ve been here since the Romans then?” They would be assumed to have lived in London all their life.
    Team GB is a very well-known example of the distinction between GB, UK and NI.
    I have no problem with Unionists in NI wanting to be citizens of the UK. But when they say "I'm British" I've always thought, no, you're Irish. You like on Ireland. Not Great Britain."

    Anyway, we need to resolve this. Our government lovingly cast NI aside for an oven-ready deal it hadn't read the instructions for. But in reality we now face the end game for the province. More people voted for the NIP status quo than voted against it. Sinn Fein now in primacy in the north and looking likely to be the same in the south.

    What we need to do is stop making stupid pro-DUP statements and think about how we keep the remaining ultra-hardcore unionists happy when Ireland either reunifies or NI becomes a self-governing mini-state.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,596
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
    That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.

    I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.

    You’ve never seen Lib Dem hype before?! That settles it: you are very, very young.

    I’ve seen at least 5 waves of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem victorious advances. They all ended in tears.
    This is an example of the kind of supercilious posting which gets me down about this place. Why the need to be snide about what is, otherwise, a good point?

    I've witnessed many LibDem surges but I'm telling you, because I live here, that I have never seen such on the ground LibDem movement as is happening in Surrey. They are really on the move here: so active, so many new posters popping up, prominent people declaring their hand.

    Ignore me if you like but my last tip on the LibDems in Surrey did NOT "end in tears". I told you they would win control of Woking council and in the end the results weren't even close.
    Stuart is resident overseas, so you have to allow for his perceptions of the UK being slightly off occasionally.
    I have ben an LD (or LIB/SDP) voter most of my adult life, but Stuart is right. The enthusiasm for the party evaporates under FPTP at GEs and may well do so again.

    Betting against LD at a GE is fairly safe perennial strategy.
    I was just being supercilious back at him, FWIW.
    I don't really disagree with his point.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745

    Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.

    UK government arguments amount to:
    "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was
    "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh!
    "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?

    Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.

    But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.

    It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.

    Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
    With respect, you are one of the people who make bold statements on this subject from a position of profound legal and diplomatic ignorance.
    With respect, I can read the text and please tell me where "unforeseen" is mentioned?

    Article 16
    Safeguards
    1. If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental
    difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom
    may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be
    restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to
    remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the
    functioning of this Protocol.
    2. If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in
    accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under
    this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such
    proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority
    shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol.
    3. Safeguard and rebalancing measures taken in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be
    governed by the procedures set out in Annex 7 to this Protocol.


    Unilateral safeguard measures may be taken if there is diversion of trade, or societal problems likely to persist. That is all it says, it doesn't say unforeseen problems.
    Indeed. And we have *already* taken those measures. So we can't legally trigger A16 to enact things that have already been enacted. But that's just what the lawyers say, what would they know?

    Again, you do come across like the QT contributor, making bold statements that just don't work. I know you don't know why they won't work but that's because you aren't a lawyer. Thats why we have lawyers so that laypeople like me and thee can be protected from making a mess of ourselves by failing to understand the law.
    We haven't taken those measures, we've taken some measures and have been in negotiations to resolve the problems always explicitly retaining the right to unilaterally implement more measures just as the Article explicitly gives us the right to do.

    A bunch of lawyers with an axe to grind like Jolyon don't make themselves right.
    I don't need to argue with you on this one. Its very simple. Pretty much the only legal brain who agrees with your position is Suella Braverman. So legally your argument doesn't stand up. And politically your "just walk away we do what we want" argument is about to be handed to you in a goodie bag by the US congress delegation.

    I know you want it and believe it. That doesn't make it true.
  • JonWCJonWC Posts: 209
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
    That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.

    I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.

    You’ve never seen Lib Dem hype before?! That settles it: you are very, very young.

    I’ve seen at least 5 waves of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem victorious advances. They all ended in tears.
    This is an example of the kind of supercilious posting which gets me down about this place. Why the need to be snide about what is, otherwise, a good point?

    I've witnessed many LibDem surges but I'm telling you, because I live here, that I have never seen such on the ground LibDem movement as is happening in Surrey. They are really on the move here: so active, so many new posters popping up, prominent people declaring their hand.

    Ignore me if you like but my last tip on the LibDems in Surrey did NOT "end in tears". I told you they would win control of Woking council and in the end the results weren't even close.
    Stuart is resident overseas, so you have to allow for his perceptions of the UK being slightly off occasionally.
    I have ben an LD (or LIB/SDP) voter most of my adult life, but Stuart is right. The enthusiasm for the party evaporates under FPTP at GEs and may well do so again.

    Betting against LD at a GE is fairly safe perennial strategy.
    I don't think that is fair. I made very decent money betting on LD seats in 1997 (market was around 25 for more than a year), 2001 (well below the number they already had) and 2005 (likewise).
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,391
    felix said:

    FPT: Apparently calling someone a 'baldy' amounts to sexual harassment - just as well there are no prominent members of the PB fraternity who are follicularly challenged enough to merit such abuse.....

    We have all been warned!

    Bothered about it? I've got mine insured against hair growing back.....

    'Hair, hair, hair, I've got none on my noddle
    I don't care as down the street I toddle
    All the people say, 'He's a good old thoroughbred.'
    I never get the knock -I'm a jolly old cock
    I'm proud of me old bald head'
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530
    The formal name of Team GB is the "Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team" but to the lay public it is simply Team GB, so its pretty reasonable for people to consider NI as part of GB, considering the amount of marketing etc associated with team GB which includes NI.

    Its one of those things that is formally an error, but substantially for lay people, it isn't. If its good enough for Team GB to refer to Northern Ireland as a part of GB, why isn't it good enough for general people to do the same?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    edited May 13

    Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.

    UK government arguments amount to:
    "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was
    "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh!
    "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?

    Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.

    But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.

    What was the bit of the GATT agreement that some fanboys were convinced would give the UK the cake'n'eatit trade deal it wanted? There was that interview with Andrew Neill where BoJo was utterly skewered in the subject.

    Is "Trigger A16" the next pretend magic wand? What endpoint do the trigger happy crew want to happen as a result? How likely is that outcome?
    Johnson will be privately delighted if the Americans save his skin. He can say to the DUP, hey, I tried my best, but we have to keep our onside with the US. We’ll bung you a few more billion quid, ok?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,049
    murali_s said:

    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    I'm "foren" and I knew the difference when I was 5.

    Yes, I know the education system in this country and the educational aspiration of the majority of the working class are poor, but do we just allow people to get away being ignorant thick sh*ts.
    Oh look, an expat racist. Good to know the traffic isn't one way.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,650
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Dura_Ace said:

    Farooq said:



    It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.

    Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...

    And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ?
    'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
    "Decades" is Macron cosying up to Putin.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745
    moonshine said:

    I see little chance of Jeremy Hunt losing his seat to the Lib Dems unless he’s sunk by a personal scandal. You can’t compute across from neighbouring seats. Woking council in particular has been beset by alleged corruption for years. Even in Woking it’s far from clear the swing will translate to a particularly close general election result. South West Surrey there’s next to no chance of a Lib Dem gain and the party would be foolish to expend much activity trying when there are more obvious targets.

    I can see Hunt holding his seat. He both has a personal profile head and shoulders above the moron drones that infest the Tory backbenches, and is clearly not representing Johnson and his ethos. He'll be ok.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799
    The local election results weren't great but they weren't terrible either, only a 2-5% Labour lead on NEV depending on the estimate used. So Hunt can go on manoeuvres but there is little chance of Johnson going anywhere, a VONC let alone one he might use
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,334

    Leon said:

    The Telegraph is asking “will Russia invade Finland”

    I strongly suspect the answer is No, but still. Disquieting

    If the answer is Yes, and Boris Johnson doesn’t break another international treaty, then the UK is shortly going to be at war with Russia.
    If that happens, it will be more than the UK at war with Russia. I can't see the world as a whole standing by if Russia invades Finland. Neighbouring countries, and then NATO, will get dragged in.

    Russia's 'case' for invading Ukraine is weak. Its case for invading Finland is essentially non-existent.

    The question is though: what can Russia invade Finland with?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530

    Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.

    UK government arguments amount to:
    "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was
    "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh!
    "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?

    Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.

    But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.

    It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.

    Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
    With respect, you are one of the people who make bold statements on this subject from a position of profound legal and diplomatic ignorance.
    With respect, I can read the text and please tell me where "unforeseen" is mentioned?

    Article 16
    Safeguards
    1. If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental
    difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom
    may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be
    restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to
    remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the
    functioning of this Protocol.
    2. If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in
    accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under
    this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such
    proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority
    shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol.
    3. Safeguard and rebalancing measures taken in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be
    governed by the procedures set out in Annex 7 to this Protocol.


    Unilateral safeguard measures may be taken if there is diversion of trade, or societal problems likely to persist. That is all it says, it doesn't say unforeseen problems.
    Indeed. And we have *already* taken those measures. So we can't legally trigger A16 to enact things that have already been enacted. But that's just what the lawyers say, what would they know?

    Again, you do come across like the QT contributor, making bold statements that just don't work. I know you don't know why they won't work but that's because you aren't a lawyer. Thats why we have lawyers so that laypeople like me and thee can be protected from making a mess of ourselves by failing to understand the law.
    We haven't taken those measures, we've taken some measures and have been in negotiations to resolve the problems always explicitly retaining the right to unilaterally implement more measures just as the Article explicitly gives us the right to do.

    A bunch of lawyers with an axe to grind like Jolyon don't make themselves right.
    I don't need to argue with you on this one. Its very simple. Pretty much the only legal brain who agrees with your position is Suella Braverman. So legally your argument doesn't stand up. And politically your "just walk away we do what we want" argument is about to be handed to you in a goodie bag by the US congress delegation.

    I know you want it and believe it. That doesn't make it true.
    Let me guess, the US Congress delegation is going to express their "concern" and that the "Good Friday Agreement must be respected".

    Considering the fact that the decision to take actions is to be made "unilaterally", the fact that the Attorney General agrees with me trumps every other hack lawyer grinding their own axe.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Dura_Ace said:

    Farooq said:



    It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.

    Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...

    And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ?
    'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
    "Decades" is Macron cosying up to Putin.
    And that’s you dog-whistling xenophobes.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,151

    Carnyx said:

    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.

    And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
    Now you are being a bit harsh (in your first paragraph at least, not the second). If I say A has always been a part of B because A has been a part of B since A came into being then I think that is reasonable. It would be the same as someone saying “I’ve always lived in London”; no one reasonable would respond “so you’ve been here since the Romans then?” They would be assumed to have lived in London all their life.
    Team GB is a very well-known example of the distinction between GB, UK and NI.
    Oh, I agree with that. I was looking at what would have happened if he had said “NI has always been a part of the UK”.
    I think the gent was applying a certain rhetorical strategy, because he seems to be of a certain affiliation which ignores the roughly half of the NI population that is not 'British'/Unionist (we see it on here). He was trying to dress it up in some sort of independent justification from geography and failing. The same sort of justification that pretends that NI as a statelet has had some immutable existence back into the Mesozoic.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799

    Carnyx said:

    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.

    And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
    Now you are being a bit harsh (in your first paragraph at least, not the second). If I say A has always been a part of B because A has been a part of B since A came into being then I think that is reasonable. It would be the same as someone saying “I’ve always lived in London”; no one reasonable would respond “so you’ve been here since the Romans then?” They would be assumed to have lived in London all their life.
    Team GB is a very well-known example of the distinction between GB, UK and NI.
    I have no problem with Unionists in NI wanting to be citizens of the UK. But when they say "I'm British" I've always thought, no, you're Irish. You like on Ireland. Not Great Britain."

    Anyway, we need to resolve this. Our government lovingly cast NI aside for an oven-ready deal it hadn't read the instructions for. But in reality we now face the end game for the province. More people voted for the NIP status quo than voted against it. Sinn Fein now in primacy in the north and looking likely to be the same in the south.

    What we need to do is stop making stupid pro-DUP statements and think about how we keep the remaining ultra-hardcore unionists happy when Ireland either reunifies or NI becomes a self-governing mini-state.
    Unionist parties also won more seats than Nationalists at Stormont. The fact most NI voters do not want a hard border in Ireland does not mean they do not want the Irish Sea border removed or to leave to UK either
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,198
    edited May 13
    Carnyx said:

    Pleasingly retro looking drone. Stick a pilot between the engines and it could be a 1920s bomber.


    IIRC Lerwick Tingwall is a single runway strip, ditto Unst. I'm slightly surprised it can land in Shetland given the effect of side winds on that empennage. Possibly it's takeoff and landing runs are so short it can do it across the runway in a crosswind?

    Edit: on second thoughts, can those undercarriage legs castor sideways like a B-52's?
    Castor is angular and/or linear displacement of the steering axis from the vertical axis of a wheel in order to induce a moment that aligns the wheel with the direction of travel. On B-52 the entire bogie is rotated in the yaw axis by hydraulics. If it did have all castoring gear a stiff crosswind on that five storey vertical stab could send it pirouetting down the runway which would be very exciting for all on board.

    Sea Harrier had selectable castoring on the nosewheel with differing gain levels. It was one part of the aircraft where they seemed to have invested a great deal of time and money for some reason.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,151

    The formal name of Team GB is the "Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team" but to the lay public it is simply Team GB, so its pretty reasonable for people to consider NI as part of GB, considering the amount of marketing etc associated with team GB which includes NI.

    Its one of those things that is formally an error, but substantially for lay people, it isn't. If its good enough for Team GB to refer to Northern Ireland as a part of GB, why isn't it good enough for general people to do the same?

    Becvause rather a lot of the NIrish play for Ireland, not the UK.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,151

    Carnyx said:

    Stocky said:

    murali_s said:

    D'ye think he voted remain? The pastel coloured sweater casually slung over his shoulders is a nice touch.



    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1524877537242931230?s=20&t=BI6omvkZSSSPsAc7U3ORPg

    Your typical Leave voter - i.e. thick!
    That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
    He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.

    And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
    Now you are being a bit harsh (in your first paragraph at least, not the second). If I say A has always been a part of B because A has been a part of B since A came into being then I think that is reasonable. It would be the same as someone saying “I’ve always lived in London”; no one reasonable would respond “so you’ve been here since the Romans then?” They would be assumed to have lived in London all their life.
    Team GB is a very well-known example of the distinction between GB, UK and NI.
    I have no problem with Unionists in NI wanting to be citizens of the UK. But when they say "I'm British" I've always thought, no, you're Irish. You like on Ireland. Not Great Britain."

    Anyway, we need to resolve this. Our government lovingly cast NI aside for an oven-ready deal it hadn't read the instructions for. But in reality we now face the end game for the province. More people voted for the NIP status quo than voted against it. Sinn Fein now in primacy in the north and looking likely to be the same in the south.

    What we need to do is stop making stupid pro-DUP statements and think about how we keep the remaining ultra-hardcore unionists happy when Ireland either reunifies or NI becomes a self-governing mini-state.
    And all my life I've heard the Tories expatiate on not pandering to terrorism, too. They really have made a wortse mess out of a mess.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530
    edited May 13
    Carnyx said:

    The formal name of Team GB is the "Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team" but to the lay public it is simply Team GB, so its pretty reasonable for people to consider NI as part of GB, considering the amount of marketing etc associated with team GB which includes NI.

    Its one of those things that is formally an error, but substantially for lay people, it isn't. If its good enough for Team GB to refer to Northern Ireland as a part of GB, why isn't it good enough for general people to do the same?

    Becvause rather a lot of the NIrish play for Ireland, not the UK.
    A lot do, a lot don't.

    The Good Friday Agreement means NI are still a part of the UK and can still compete under Team GB and have British citizenship but they also have the right to choose Irish citizenship and choose to compete for Ireland if they want to.

    That doesn't make them any less British though, if they prefer to be considered British, and they are still a part of the UK and Team GB if that is what they prefer.

    If anyone though that all of Northern Ireland competes for Ireland that is far more substantially wrong than making the same linguistic technical error that tens of millions make every single Olympics year when they refer to Team GB.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,195
    What happens if you make it easier to import goods and harder to export them?

    UK’s trade deficit for goods and services widened to a record 5.3% of nominal GDP — largest gap since records began in 1955 — as imports rose 9.3 %, largely reflecting higher energy prices, while exports fell 4.9%. The fall in exports was broad-based.
    https://www.ft.com/content/9880c4cd-033f-40c9-85c8-580d4c344439
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    And I'm going to re-post this as a

    **** BETTING POST *****

    Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.

    p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.

    I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
    That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.

    I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.

    You’ve never seen Lib Dem hype before?! That settles it: you are very, very young.

    I’ve seen at least 5 waves of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem victorious advances. They all ended in tears.
    This is an example of the kind of supercilious posting which gets me down about this place. Why the need to be snide about what is, otherwise, a good point?

    I've witnessed many LibDem surges but I'm telling you, because I live here, that I have never seen such on the ground LibDem movement as is happening in Surrey. They are really on the move here: so active, so many new posters popping up, prominent people declaring their hand.

    Ignore me if you like but my last tip on the LibDems in Surrey did NOT "end in tears". I told you they would win control of Woking council and in the end the results weren't even close.
    Stuart is resident overseas, so you have to allow for his perceptions of the UK being slightly off occasionally.
    I have ben an LD (or LIB/SDP) voter most of my adult life, but Stuart is right. The enthusiasm for the party evaporates under FPTP at GEs and may well do so again.

    Betting against LD at a GE is fairly safe perennial strategy.
    It may evaporate in Tory v Labour seats, it doesn't in seats where the LDs are in the top 2.

    Indeed in 1997 the LDs doubled their seat tally despite a slightly lower voteshare than 1992 because of the collapse of the Tory vote and Labour tactical voting in LD target seats
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,191
    OT

    How does getting rid of 90000 civil servants ease the cost of living crisis?
This discussion has been closed.