Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
For Johnson it's the vicarious thrill of a war, which is surely one of the top perks of being PM, without getting his vibe harshed by any British casualties. All he has to do is give away large amounts of other people's money.
Not just the PM. Richard Sherriff was on the radio the other day saying how UK society should alter its mindset and prepare for a potential nuclear exchange and that, surprise surprise, HMF should be hosed with money.
Of course the generals want another Cold War. All the money they want whilst knowing they will never actually have to do any fighting.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
For Johnson it's the vicarious thrill of a war, which is surely one of the top perks of being PM, without getting his vibe harshed by any British casualties. All he has to do is give away large amounts of other people's money.
And, in fact, when most of this is equipment we've already acquired, it's giving away cost that has already been sunk. It'll be interesting to see if we start manufacturing new stuff and shipping it.
Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.
But that hasn't happened, has it?
So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.
There's a downside right there.
If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.
No reason to do that though.
I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.
Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.
But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
Or your failure to accept that your victory has consequences.
I accept the consequences.
Alignment is not a consequence.
The NIP is a consequence. Your alternative "solution" (force the EU to accept a back door into the single market) won't work because we are too weak to impose it on them. You're just a rando on the internet so fine, you can chat shit about this and it doesn't matter. I only hope that the government doesn't actually believe the shit they are coming out with, or we are in big trouble.
Of course we are strong enough to impose it on them. I hope the government do actually believe it.
The EU are bluffing and we hold all the cards, we always did. If we refuse to do checks, then are they going to start doing checks on the border of Ireland/NI?
If not, what's the threat to the GFA, and what can the EU do about it?
We hold all the cards. Lol. What the fuck do you know about negotiation "Bart" ? Obviously the square root of fuck all. No-one ever "holds all the cards". Anyone that thinks they do is a dullard and will almost certainly be out-manoeuvred.
If you're prepared to walk away if you don't get what you want, then you do.
If we don't get what we want, we should invoke Article 16 and walk away. Say that the safeguarding preventing the threat to trade diversion and social cohesion is our first priority, that we will never implement GB/NI checks and that if the EU want an Irish land border its their responsibility to implement it but we will not be doing so.
They will have no cards to play there. They can't force us to build a sea border if we say no, and they aren't willing to build a land border, so that's that, job done.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
There's also anger in some quarters that the UK is having a "maximalist" view that Ukraine should keep its territory and saying that Ukraine may want to compromise but the UK is standing in the way of that.
Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.
But that hasn't happened, has it?
So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.
There's a downside right there.
If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.
No reason to do that though.
I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.
Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.
But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
Or your failure to accept that your victory has consequences.
I accept the consequences.
Alignment is not a consequence.
The NIP is a consequence. Your alternative "solution" (force the EU to accept a back door into the single market) won't work because we are too weak to impose it on them. You're just a rando on the internet so fine, you can chat shit about this and it doesn't matter. I only hope that the government doesn't actually believe the shit they are coming out with, or we are in big trouble.
Of course we are strong enough to impose it on them. I hope the government do actually believe it.
The EU are bluffing and we hold all the cards, we always did. If we refuse to do checks, then are they going to start doing checks on the border of Ireland/NI?
If not, what's the threat to the GFA, and what can the EU do about it?
We hold all the cards. Lol. What the fuck do you know about negotiation "Bart" ? Obviously the square root of fuck all. No-one ever "holds all the cards". Anyone that thinks they do is a dullard and will almost certainly be out-manoeuvred.
If you're prepared to walk away if you don't get what you want, then you do.
If we don't get what we want, we should invoke Article 16 and walk away. Say that the safeguarding preventing the threat to trade diversion and social cohesion is our first priority, that we will never implement GB/NI checks and that if the EU want an Irish land border its their responsibility to implement it but we will not be doing so.
They will have no cards to play there. They can't force us to build a sea border if we say no, and they aren't willing to build a land border, so that's that, job done.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
Of course life is complicated, but no the world is not just about compromise, the world is also about knowing when to say "we can't reach an agreement" shake hands and walk away.
If you're not prepared to walk away, you aren't going to get very far in negotiations.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
There's also anger in some quarters that the UK is having a "maximalist" view that Ukraine should keep its territory and saying that Ukraine may want to compromise but the UK is standing in the way of that.
Some people are crazy.
There are also "concerns" that the US won't lift sanctions rapidly, in the event of stalemate.
This would make starting Nordstream 2 impossible, for example. Yes, some people still want it.
Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.
But that hasn't happened, has it?
So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.
There's a downside right there.
If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.
No reason to do that though.
I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.
Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.
But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
Or your failure to accept that your victory has consequences.
I accept the consequences.
Alignment is not a consequence.
The NIP is a consequence. Your alternative "solution" (force the EU to accept a back door into the single market) won't work because we are too weak to impose it on them. You're just a rando on the internet so fine, you can chat shit about this and it doesn't matter. I only hope that the government doesn't actually believe the shit they are coming out with, or we are in big trouble.
Of course we are strong enough to impose it on them. I hope the government do actually believe it.
The EU are bluffing and we hold all the cards, we always did. If we refuse to do checks, then are they going to start doing checks on the border of Ireland/NI?
If not, what's the threat to the GFA, and what can the EU do about it?
We hold all the cards. Lol. What the fuck do you know about negotiation "Bart" ? Obviously the square root of fuck all. No-one ever "holds all the cards". Anyone that thinks they do is a dullard and will almost certainly be out-manoeuvred.
If you're prepared to walk away if you don't get what you want, then you do.
If we don't get what we want, we should invoke Article 16 and walk away. Say that the safeguarding preventing the threat to trade diversion and social cohesion is our first priority, that we will never implement GB/NI checks and that if the EU want an Irish land border its their responsibility to implement it but we will not be doing so.
They will have no cards to play there. They can't force us to build a sea border if we say no, and they aren't willing to build a land border, so that's that, job done.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
Of course life is complicated, but no the world is not just about compromise, the world is also about knowing when to say "we can't reach an agreement" shake hands and walk away.
If you're not prepared to walk away, you aren't going to get very far in negotiations.
I think you know about as much about negotiation as you do about the other things you pronounce on. Not much.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
It is certainly turning into Vietnam full fat for the Russian military
So we keep hearing.
In the early days of the Vietnam war the US press were full of stories about how the VC were getting spanked, the government were upbeat, the communists are taking terrible casualties and can't hang on much longer.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
France and Germany's stance then appears to be that a murderous tyrant like Putin can have full control over bits of Ukraine, but they will not budge an inch over Northern Ireland in negotiations with free democratic ally Britain.
I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin.
Force and realpolitik is manifestly what the EU and its constituent countries listen to, and the notion that they play by the rules of international law is the most unmitigated bullsh8t going.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
It is certainly turning into Vietnam full fat for the Russian military
So we keep hearing.
In the early days of the Vietnam war the US press were full of stories about how the VC were getting spanked, the government were upbeat, the communists are taking terrible casualties and can't hang on much longer.
And look what happened there.
I can remember the heady days of March when the Russians were going to run out of food in three days because of Chinese tyres or something.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
It is certainly turning into Vietnam full fat for the Russian military
So we keep hearing.
In the early days of the Vietnam war the US press were full of stories about how the VC were getting spanked, the government were upbeat, the communists are taking terrible casualties and can't hang on much longer.
And look what happened there.
I can remember the heady days of March when the Russians were going to run out of food in three days because of Chinese tyres or something.
You mean before they retreated wholescale from Kyiv with their asses handed to them?
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
It is certainly turning into Vietnam full fat for the Russian military
So we keep hearing.
In the early days of the Vietnam war the US press were full of stories about how the VC were getting spanked, the government were upbeat, the communists are taking terrible casualties and can't hang on much longer.
And look what happened there.
True but there is far more information emerging rapidly from multiple sources than 60s/70s. Even allowing for much better media management by Ukraine and supporters the overwhelming evidence is that Russia is being hammered militarily. The available facts point to big problems in maintaining effective Russian combat forces too.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
France and Germany's stance then appears to be that a murderous tyrant like Putin can have full control over bits of Ukraine, but they will not budge an inch over Northern Ireland in negotiations with free democratic ally Britain.
I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin.
Force and realpolitik is manifestly what the EU and its constituent countries listen to, and the notion that they play by the rules of international law is the most unmitigated bullsh8t going.
"I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin".
Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.
But that hasn't happened, has it?
So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.
There's a downside right there.
If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.
No reason to do that though.
I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.
Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.
But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
Or your failure to accept that your victory has consequences.
I accept the consequences.
Alignment is not a consequence.
The NIP is a consequence. Your alternative "solution" (force the EU to accept a back door into the single market) won't work because we are too weak to impose it on them. You're just a rando on the internet so fine, you can chat shit about this and it doesn't matter. I only hope that the government doesn't actually believe the shit they are coming out with, or we are in big trouble.
Of course we are strong enough to impose it on them. I hope the government do actually believe it.
The EU are bluffing and we hold all the cards, we always did. If we refuse to do checks, then are they going to start doing checks on the border of Ireland/NI?
If not, what's the threat to the GFA, and what can the EU do about it?
We hold all the cards. Lol. What the fuck do you know about negotiation "Bart" ? Obviously the square root of fuck all. No-one ever "holds all the cards". Anyone that thinks they do is a dullard and will almost certainly be out-manoeuvred.
If you're prepared to walk away if you don't get what you want, then you do.
If we don't get what we want, we should invoke Article 16 and walk away. Say that the safeguarding preventing the threat to trade diversion and social cohesion is our first priority, that we will never implement GB/NI checks and that if the EU want an Irish land border its their responsibility to implement it but we will not be doing so.
They will have no cards to play there. They can't force us to build a sea border if we say no, and they aren't willing to build a land border, so that's that, job done.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
Of course life is complicated, but no the world is not just about compromise, the world is also about knowing when to say "we can't reach an agreement" shake hands and walk away.
If you're not prepared to walk away, you aren't going to get very far in negotiations.
So speaks someone who has read a bit of theory about what a negotiation is but hasn;t actually done any.
You almost always need a walk-away point. But in some negotiations where you are in a submissive position you can't walk away - because the consequences are worse / more expensive / more damaging than a negotiated position a little outside your preferred position.
You come across as a gobby 2 o'clock "take it or leave it" merchant. Which is fine when its a transactional negotiation to buy something you don't really need. But that isn't us or the negotiation we are in.
Your fundamental inability to map the variables in this negotiation, to understand the other side's strengths / needs / break points or the values and criticality of your own positions would have you stitched up worse than Lord Frost was.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
For Johnson it's the vicarious thrill of a war, which is surely one of the top perks of being PM, without getting his vibe harshed by any British casualties. All he has to do is give away large amounts of other people's money.
Not just the PM. Richard Sherriff was on the radio the other day saying how UK society should alter its mindset and prepare for a potential nuclear exchange and that, surprise surprise, HMF should be hosed with money.
Of course the generals want another Cold War. All the money they want whilst knowing they will never actually have to do any fighting.
As deputy head of NATO during the Putin era, he prolly knows a thing or two about it. The argument that there has never been a nuclear war, therefore there will never be a nuclear war, is really, really not bulletproof.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
It is certainly turning into Vietnam full fat for the Russian military
So we keep hearing.
In the early days of the Vietnam war the US press were full of stories about how the VC were getting spanked, the government were upbeat, the communists are taking terrible casualties and can't hang on much longer.
And look what happened there.
I can remember the heady days of March when the Russians were going to run out of food in three days because of Chinese tyres or something.
...and then retreated to re-group and fight rather nearer their supply system. Especially the railheads.
Probably because the Russian Army is really a bunch of trainspotters.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
France and Germany's stance then appears to be that a murderous tyrant like Putin can have full control over bits of Ukraine, but they will not budge an inch over Northern Ireland in negotiations with free democratic ally Britain.
I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin.
Force and realpolitik is manifestly what the EU and its constituent countries listen to, and the notion that they play by the rules of international law is the most unmitigated bullsh8t going.
"I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin".
You are clearly a nutter
FFS its a rhetorical point and you know it
I am just going by the evidence. Macron and Scholtz are happy to cede territory to Putin to make it stop. We are told they and their EU counterparts are sticklers for international law.
That is manifestly untrue its a blatant remainer lie, its just you hate any criticism whatever of your beloved EU.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
It is certainly turning into Vietnam full fat for the Russian military
So we keep hearing.
In the early days of the Vietnam war the US press were full of stories about how the VC were getting spanked, the government were upbeat, the communists are taking terrible casualties and can't hang on much longer.
And look what happened there.
Yes, the foreign occupying force had an ignominious defeat. Not sure it is a good analogy to support you Putin-appeasement sentiment.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
France and Germany's stance then appears to be that a murderous tyrant like Putin can have full control over bits of Ukraine, but they will not budge an inch over Northern Ireland in negotiations with free democratic ally Britain.
I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin.
Force and realpolitik is manifestly what the EU and its constituent countries listen to, and the notion that they play by the rules of international law is the most unmitigated bullsh8t going.
"I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin".
You are clearly a nutter
FFS its a rhetorical point and you know it
I am just going by the evidence. Macron and Scholtz are happy to cede territory to Putin to make it stop. We are told they and their EU counterparts are sticklers for international law.
That is manifestly untrue its a blatant remainer lie, its just you hate any criticism whatever of your beloved EU.
If Macron and Scholtz are happy to cede territory to Putin to make it stop, then I am 100% in favour.
I've already suggested that Germany give Russia Schleswig-Holstein as a peace offering.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
It is certainly turning into Vietnam full fat for the Russian military
So we keep hearing.
In the early days of the Vietnam war the US press were full of stories about how the VC were getting spanked, the government were upbeat, the communists are taking terrible casualties and can't hang on much longer.
And look what happened there.
Yes, the foreign occupying force had an ignominious defeat. Not sure it is a good analogy to support you Putin-appeasement sentiment.
The Putin appeasement is all coming from your beloved EU and its most powerful countries Germany and France. It is they who are prepared to carve up Ukraine with a murderous tyrant.
We are told these are the paragons and upholders of international law with whom we may not break trust over Northern Ireland. What a gigantic remainer lie.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
France and Germany's stance then appears to be that a murderous tyrant like Putin can have full control over bits of Ukraine, but they will not budge an inch over Northern Ireland in negotiations with free democratic ally Britain.
I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin.
Force and realpolitik is manifestly what the EU and its constituent countries listen to, and the notion that they play by the rules of international law is the most unmitigated bullsh8t going.
"I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin".
You are clearly a nutter
FFS its a rhetorical point and you know it
I am just going by the evidence. Macron and Scholtz are happy to cede territory to Putin to make it stop. We are told they and their EU counterparts are sticklers for international law.
That is manifestly untrue its a blatant remainer lie, its just you hate any criticism whatever of your beloved EU.
The EU isn't "mine", nor is it "beloved" of me you hyperbolic nutjob. Move on from Brexit, this obsession you have with bashing the EU is really not good for you. Brexit is here. It is totally shit and pointless, but people like you who read too many war comics got their way, you don't need to obsess about it any more.
Sue Gray was born in 1957 or 58 and is either 64 or 65 says wiki. These things are usually known even if it was overnight 31 Dec-1 Jan (My eldest son was born at 0007, but we know the time and therefore date for definite). Mind you someone I was at university with was discovered dead of heroin on about 2 Jan so there was some debate as to what year to put on the gravestone.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
It is certainly turning into Vietnam full fat for the Russian military
So we keep hearing.
In the early days of the Vietnam war the US press were full of stories about how the VC were getting spanked, the government were upbeat, the communists are taking terrible casualties and can't hang on much longer.
And look what happened there.
Yes, the foreign occupying force had an ignominious defeat. Not sure it is a good analogy to support you Putin-appeasement sentiment.
The Putin appeasement is all coming from your beloved EU and its most powerful countries Germany and France. It is they who are prepared to carve up Ukraine with a murderous tyrant.
We are told these are the paragons and upholders of international law with whom we may not break trust over Northern Ireland. What a gigantic remainer lie.
Oh dear, your eyes really are swivelling now. Get some help.
Too many terrorist organisations in Sweden and Finland, apparently.
Turkey is in an economic hole. I suspect this is gamesmanship from Erdogan and he will be “persuaded” this is a good idea by hard foreign cash to fund his army, cash which he himself does not have
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
France and Germany's stance then appears to be that a murderous tyrant like Putin can have full control over bits of Ukraine, but they will not budge an inch over Northern Ireland in negotiations with free democratic ally Britain.
I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin.
Force and realpolitik is manifestly what the EU and its constituent countries listen to, and the notion that they play by the rules of international law is the most unmitigated bullsh8t going.
"I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin".
You are clearly a nutter
FFS its a rhetorical point and you know it
I am just going by the evidence. Macron and Scholtz are happy to cede territory to Putin to make it stop. We are told they and their EU counterparts are sticklers for international law.
That is manifestly untrue its a blatant remainer lie, its just you hate any criticism whatever of your beloved EU.
The EU isn't "mine", nor is it "beloved" of me you hyperbolic nutjob. Move on from Brexit, this obsession you have with bashing the EU is really not good for you. Brexit is here. It is totally shit and pointless, but people like you who read too many war comics got their way, you don't need to obsess about it any more.
Those paragons of the primacy of international law, Germany and France, are preparing to carve up Ukraine in a deal with a murderous tyrant. To make it stop.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
France and Germany's stance then appears to be that a murderous tyrant like Putin can have full control over bits of Ukraine, but they will not budge an inch over Northern Ireland in negotiations with free democratic ally Britain.
I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin.
Force and realpolitik is manifestly what the EU and its constituent countries listen to, and the notion that they play by the rules of international law is the most unmitigated bullsh8t going.
"I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin".
You are clearly a nutter
FFS its a rhetorical point and you know it
I am just going by the evidence. Macron and Scholtz are happy to cede territory to Putin to make it stop. We are told they and their EU counterparts are sticklers for international law.
That is manifestly untrue its a blatant remainer lie, its just you hate any criticism whatever of your beloved EU.
The EU isn't "mine", nor is it "beloved" of me you hyperbolic nutjob. Move on from Brexit, this obsession you have with bashing the EU is really not good for you. Brexit is here. It is totally shit and pointless, but people like you who read too many war comics got their way, you don't need to obsess about it any more.
Those paragons of the primacy of international law, Germany and France, are preparing to carve up Ukraine in a deal with a murderous tyrant. To make it stop.
Fact.
I think of all the posters on here, you seem keenest to push Putinesque propaganda. I'd have thought you'd be pleased?
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
France and Germany's stance then appears to be that a murderous tyrant like Putin can have full control over bits of Ukraine, but they will not budge an inch over Northern Ireland in negotiations with free democratic ally Britain.
I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin.
Force and realpolitik is manifestly what the EU and its constituent countries listen to, and the notion that they play by the rules of international law is the most unmitigated bullsh8t going.
"I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin".
You are clearly a nutter
FFS its a rhetorical point and you know it
I am just going by the evidence. Macron and Scholtz are happy to cede territory to Putin to make it stop. We are told they and their EU counterparts are sticklers for international law.
That is manifestly untrue its a blatant remainer lie, its just you hate any criticism whatever of your beloved EU.
The EU isn't "mine", nor is it "beloved" of me you hyperbolic nutjob. Move on from Brexit, this obsession you have with bashing the EU is really not good for you. Brexit is here. It is totally shit and pointless, but people like you who read too many war comics got their way, you don't need to obsess about it any more.
Those paragons of the primacy of international law, Germany and France, are preparing to carve up Ukraine in a deal with a murderous tyrant. To make it stop.
Fact.
I think of all the posters on here, you seem keenest to push Putinesque propaganda. I'd have thought you'd be pleased?
You clearly missed the bit where I called Putin a 'murderous tyrant'.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
For Johnson it's the vicarious thrill of a war, which is surely one of the top perks of being PM, without getting his vibe harshed by any British casualties. All he has to do is give away large amounts of other people's money.
Not just the PM. Richard Sherriff was on the radio the other day saying how UK society should alter its mindset and prepare for a potential nuclear exchange and that, surprise surprise, HMF should be hosed with money.
Of course the generals want another Cold War. All the money they want whilst knowing they will never actually have to do any fighting.
As deputy head of NATO during the Putin era, he prolly knows a thing or two about it. The argument that there has never been a nuclear war, therefore there will never be a nuclear war, is really, really not bulletproof.
He wants more spending on the military and the population to be put on a war footing. How would that affect the I agree non-trivial probability of a nuclear war.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
France and Germany's stance then appears to be that a murderous tyrant like Putin can have full control over bits of Ukraine, but they will not budge an inch over Northern Ireland in negotiations with free democratic ally Britain.
I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin.
Force and realpolitik is manifestly what the EU and its constituent countries listen to, and the notion that they play by the rules of international law is the most unmitigated bullsh8t going.
"I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin".
You are clearly a nutter
FFS its a rhetorical point and you know it
I am just going by the evidence. Macron and Scholtz are happy to cede territory to Putin to make it stop. We are told they and their EU counterparts are sticklers for international law.
That is manifestly untrue its a blatant remainer lie, its just you hate any criticism whatever of your beloved EU.
The EU isn't "mine", nor is it "beloved" of me you hyperbolic nutjob. Move on from Brexit, this obsession you have with bashing the EU is really not good for you. Brexit is here. It is totally shit and pointless, but people like you who read too many war comics got their way, you don't need to obsess about it any more.
Those paragons of the primacy of international law, Germany and France, are preparing to carve up Ukraine in a deal with a murderous tyrant. To make it stop.
Fact.
I think of all the posters on here, you seem keenest to push Putinesque propaganda. I'd have thought you'd be pleased?
You clearly missed the bit where I called Putin a 'murderous tyrant'.
No, I didn't, I assumed you thought it a compliment.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there are a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some erstwhile Remainers didn't accept that they lost.
Markets have been trying to go up over the past week. I have said it before (notably during the Covid crash) and will repeat that equities is just about the only game in town. Not to say we aren't for good reason about to enter a structural bear market, but that as a home for peoples' excess savings there aren't many options apart from the equities markets.
But we shall see - earlier this week we saw upwards of a 700 pt swing on the Dow and it's "only" up 350-odd points now. Plenty of time for the sell in May crowd.
Sue Gray was born in 1957 or 58 and is either 64 or 65 says wiki. These things are usually known even if it was overnight 31 Dec-1 Jan (My eldest son was born at 0007, but we know the time and therefore date for definite). Mind you someone I was at university with was discovered dead of heroin on about 2 Jan so there was some debate as to what year to put on the gravestone.
A minor oddity.
It was known that she was 63 on April 8th 2021. So there is an obvious uncertainty about how old she is because her birthday could be either April 7th or April 9th, or any date in between.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
Yes I suppose that is true although I don't remember Rochdale being quite so vituperatively in favour of Brexiting as @billglen was in favour of remaining. Rochdale it seems voted for a sensible Brexit which the govt has since trodden all over. I get that he would be disillusioned with the execution.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.
Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.
The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.
But that hasn't happened, has it?
So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.
Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.
If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.
I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.
I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?
If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
The report demonstrates the scale of the problem, one you deny.
The current Govt won the election promising not to increase National Insurance. It then increased National Insurance. Is that undemocratic?
The current Govt won the election on the basis of its “oven-ready” Brexit deal. It now wants to break that deal. Is that undemocratic?
I didn't deny it was a problem, I didn't say anything about the scale of the problem.
We are prepared to live with the scale of the problem, despite knowing the problem, without either shutting down the border, or accepting alignment on duty. It is proof that we don't need to be aligned, if we don't want to be, even if stuff crosses the border. If it causes a problem, you deal with the problem, you don't cut off your own nose to spite your face.
Yes it was terrible that the government increased NI and I wrote a thread header bemoaning it and quit the party over it.
Yet you support breaking the NIP, which was also in the manifesto?
I have never advocated breaking the NIP, I advocate invoking Article 16 of the NIP and using that to neuter the NIP until solutions are found that 100% remove the threat to social cohesion or trade diversion.
If no solutions are ever found, then A16 can remain invoked forever and the NIP will have died a death, still in force technically but neutered by one of its own provisions.
The manifesto promised to implement the NIP. You are advocating effectively killing the NIP. That would be like introducing a new tax called Country Insurance that effectively increased NI, but pretended to do otherwise because of a manifesto pledge. You would've seen through such a ruse.
You demand the Govt stick to manifesto pledges, except here. This does not appear to be consistent to me.
Bullshit, I am calling for the safeguards that were agreed to be respected.
If the NIP is "effectively killed" by its own safeguarding, then that is utterly reasonable. That is the purpose of safeguarding, to do a risk assessment, identify risks (known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns) and if a risk, foreseen or unforeseen, arises that requires safeguarding you deal with it.
The safeguarding said we would prevent threats to "social cohesion" or "trade diversion". That safeguarding must be respected. If the Protocol is leading either to threats to social cohesion, or to trade diversion, then proper safeguarding requires us to implement the safeguarding provisions and put a halt to the operations of the Protocol unless or until a solution that removes the risk of trade diversion or to social cohesion is able to be implemented.
That isn't breaking the Protocol, it is respecting the Protocol by following the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures.
Any business or other institution that disregarded its own safeguarding policy by saying "yes we knew that a risk was happening, but we chose not to implement safeguarding because that was a foreseeable risk so we disregarded our safeguarding policies" would be in serious trouble.
Why do you want to disregard the safeguarding article of the Protocol? Are you always so cavalier about safeguarding everywhere else.
Well there's the rub. I don't think this is about safeguarding mechanisms, about the NIP not working as it was intended to. It was clear how the NIP would work and the Govt signed up to it (having put it in its manifesto). It's just that, as Frost himself has explicitly said, they wanted a quick win and then they planned to re-negotiate later. The Govt signed up in bad faith, misleading the EU and misleading the voters.
The Govt signed up to something that they never intended to stick with. They broke their promise over the National Insurance, but at least that was for understandable reasons, an unexpected pandemic. With the NIP, they lied about what it was (Boris promising no paperwork) and lied about their intention to stick to it.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.
Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.
The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.
But that hasn't happened, has it?
So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.
Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.
If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.
I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.
I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?
If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
The report demonstrates the scale of the problem, one you deny.
The current Govt won the election promising not to increase National Insurance. It then increased National Insurance. Is that undemocratic?
The current Govt won the election on the basis of its “oven-ready” Brexit deal. It now wants to break that deal. Is that undemocratic?
I didn't deny it was a problem, I didn't say anything about the scale of the problem.
We are prepared to live with the scale of the problem, despite knowing the problem, without either shutting down the border, or accepting alignment on duty. It is proof that we don't need to be aligned, if we don't want to be, even if stuff crosses the border. If it causes a problem, you deal with the problem, you don't cut off your own nose to spite your face.
Yes it was terrible that the government increased NI and I wrote a thread header bemoaning it and quit the party over it.
Yet you support breaking the NIP, which was also in the manifesto?
I have never advocated breaking the NIP, I advocate invoking Article 16 of the NIP and using that to neuter the NIP until solutions are found that 100% remove the threat to social cohesion or trade diversion.
If no solutions are ever found, then A16 can remain invoked forever and the NIP will have died a death, still in force technically but neutered by one of its own provisions.
The manifesto promised to implement the NIP. You are advocating effectively killing the NIP. That would be like introducing a new tax called Country Insurance that effectively increased NI, but pretended to do otherwise because of a manifesto pledge. You would've seen through such a ruse.
You demand the Govt stick to manifesto pledges, except here. This does not appear to be consistent to me.
Bullshit, I am calling for the safeguards that were agreed to be respected.
If the NIP is "effectively killed" by its own safeguarding, then that is utterly reasonable. That is the purpose of safeguarding, to do a risk assessment, identify risks (known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns) and if a risk, foreseen or unforeseen, arises that requires safeguarding you deal with it.
The safeguarding said we would prevent threats to "social cohesion" or "trade diversion". That safeguarding must be respected. If the Protocol is leading either to threats to social cohesion, or to trade diversion, then proper safeguarding requires us to implement the safeguarding provisions and put a halt to the operations of the Protocol unless or until a solution that removes the risk of trade diversion or to social cohesion is able to be implemented.
That isn't breaking the Protocol, it is respecting the Protocol by following the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures.
Any business or other institution that disregarded its own safeguarding policy by saying "yes we knew that a risk was happening, but we chose not to implement safeguarding because that was a foreseeable risk so we disregarded our safeguarding policies" would be in serious trouble.
Why do you want to disregard the safeguarding article of the Protocol? Are you always so cavalier about safeguarding everywhere else.
Well there's the rub. I don't think this is about safeguarding mechanisms, about the NIP not working as it was intended to. It was clear how the NIP would work and the Govt signed up to it (having put it in its manifesto). It's just that, as Frost himself has explicitly said, they wanted a quick win and then they planned to re-negotiate later. The Govt signed up in bad faith, misleading the EU and misleading the voters.
The Govt signed up to something that they never intended to stick with. They broke their promise over the National Insurance, but at least that was for understandable reasons, an unexpected pandemic. With the NIP, they lied about what it was (Boris promising no paperwork) and lied about their intention to stick to it.
It was a matter of public record at the time that the priority was to get a deal and renegotiate later, that was never disputed at the time. It was all part and parcel of the EU's preferred sequencing. Many were saying we should agree to the backstop because we could renegotiate it later, only the backstop had no unilateral exit and no safeguarding, so Frost's deal is infinitely superior.
So no, looking to renegotiate now that we have the TCA and can renegotiate sensibly post-Brexit isn't dishonesty, it is the sequencing as it was meant to be.
Besides if the problems were foreseeable, then the usage of the safeguarding to prevent or deal with those problems was also foreseeable. That is quite literally the purpose of having safeguarding, is it not?
What is the point of safeguarding if you don't implement it when a known risk comes to pass?
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
Yes I suppose that is true although I don't remember Rochdale being quite so vituperatively in favour of Brexiting as @billglen was in favour of remaining. Rochdale it seems voted for a sensible Brexit which the govt has since trodden all over. I get that he would be disillusioned with the execution.
I voted to leave the EU. Had we left the EU and remained in an open co-operating trading relationship with the EEU and EUCU I would be quite happy.
The problems we have now are nothing to do with leaving the EU and everything to do with the stupidity of what we have done after leaving the EU.
That there are BR-type voices still saying "we hold all the cards, just walk away, what can they do" is the reason the government continue to screw up as much as they do. I will be polite and say that it is a logical fallacy to say something patently incorrect like "we hold all the cards", then watch all the evidence pile up demonstrating how this isn't true and then keep saying "we hold all the cards". Or providing fact-free theoretical lectures about how trade works as if that somehow changes the practical realities on the ground.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
Yes I suppose that is true although I don't remember Rochdale being quite so vituperatively in favour of Brexiting as @billglen was in favour of remaining. Rochdale it seems voted for a sensible Brexit which the govt has since trodden all over. I get that he would be disillusioned with the execution.
I voted to leave the EU. Had we left the EU and remained in an open co-operating trading relationship with the EEU and EUCU I would be quite happy.
The problems we have now are nothing to do with leaving the EU and everything to do with the stupidity of what we have done after leaving the EU.
That there are BR-type voices still saying "we hold all the cards, just walk away, what can they do" is the reason the government continue to screw up as much as they do. I will be polite and say that it is a logical fallacy to say something patently incorrect like "we hold all the cards", then watch all the evidence pile up demonstrating how this isn't true and then keep saying "we hold all the cards". Or providing fact-free theoretical lectures about how trade works as if that somehow changes the practical realities on the ground.
The difference between you and me is you have all these fictitious "problems" you're worried about like Kent, that I'm not.
As far as NI is concerned, yes it was a mistake to sequence it to deal with NI first before the trade arrangements were agreed but the EU insisted on it and Theresa May's "fight of the summer" over that ended on day 1 when she agreed to that sequencing.
We've been trying to undo the damage ever since. Invoking A16 could be the final step of reversing May and Hammond's catastrophic handling of Brexit, GB is already out of the EU's orbit, we just need to finish the job and have a solution for NI now.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
Lol. I voted Leave because the half-in/half-out status quo was unsustainable, and eventually we either had to be fully in, or out. And nobody on the Remain side was making the case for being fully in.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.
Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.
The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.
But that hasn't happened, has it?
So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.
Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.
If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.
I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.
I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?
If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
The report demonstrates the scale of the problem, one you deny.
The current Govt won the election promising not to increase National Insurance. It then increased National Insurance. Is that undemocratic?
The current Govt won the election on the basis of its “oven-ready” Brexit deal. It now wants to break that deal. Is that undemocratic?
I didn't deny it was a problem, I didn't say anything about the scale of the problem.
We are prepared to live with the scale of the problem, despite knowing the problem, without either shutting down the border, or accepting alignment on duty. It is proof that we don't need to be aligned, if we don't want to be, even if stuff crosses the border. If it causes a problem, you deal with the problem, you don't cut off your own nose to spite your face.
Yes it was terrible that the government increased NI and I wrote a thread header bemoaning it and quit the party over it.
Yet you support breaking the NIP, which was also in the manifesto?
I have never advocated breaking the NIP, I advocate invoking Article 16 of the NIP and using that to neuter the NIP until solutions are found that 100% remove the threat to social cohesion or trade diversion.
If no solutions are ever found, then A16 can remain invoked forever and the NIP will have died a death, still in force technically but neutered by one of its own provisions.
The manifesto promised to implement the NIP. You are advocating effectively killing the NIP. That would be like introducing a new tax called Country Insurance that effectively increased NI, but pretended to do otherwise because of a manifesto pledge. You would've seen through such a ruse.
You demand the Govt stick to manifesto pledges, except here. This does not appear to be consistent to me.
Bullshit, I am calling for the safeguards that were agreed to be respected.
If the NIP is "effectively killed" by its own safeguarding, then that is utterly reasonable. That is the purpose of safeguarding, to do a risk assessment, identify risks (known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns) and if a risk, foreseen or unforeseen, arises that requires safeguarding you deal with it.
The safeguarding said we would prevent threats to "social cohesion" or "trade diversion". That safeguarding must be respected. If the Protocol is leading either to threats to social cohesion, or to trade diversion, then proper safeguarding requires us to implement the safeguarding provisions and put a halt to the operations of the Protocol unless or until a solution that removes the risk of trade diversion or to social cohesion is able to be implemented.
That isn't breaking the Protocol, it is respecting the Protocol by following the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures.
Any business or other institution that disregarded its own safeguarding policy by saying "yes we knew that a risk was happening, but we chose not to implement safeguarding because that was a foreseeable risk so we disregarded our safeguarding policies" would be in serious trouble.
Why do you want to disregard the safeguarding article of the Protocol? Are you always so cavalier about safeguarding everywhere else.
Well there's the rub. I don't think this is about safeguarding mechanisms, about the NIP not working as it was intended to. It was clear how the NIP would work and the Govt signed up to it (having put it in its manifesto). It's just that, as Frost himself has explicitly said, they wanted a quick win and then they planned to re-negotiate later. The Govt signed up in bad faith, misleading the EU and misleading the voters.
The Govt signed up to something that they never intended to stick with. They broke their promise over the National Insurance, but at least that was for understandable reasons, an unexpected pandemic. With the NIP, they lied about what it was (Boris promising no paperwork) and lied about their intention to stick to it.
The Govt would also be in a much stronger position if it had actually implemented the agreement it signed up to (at its own insistence, not the EUs, don't forget), and then tried to change it later. Of course it never intended to, but the EU fell for it, not being quite so aware as many of us here that you shouldn't trust Johnson's word any further than you can throw him.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The seventh Iron Law of Internet forum commentary
To wit: anyone that refers to “my ironic sense of humour” generally has no sense of humour, least of all “ironic”.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.
Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.
The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.
But that hasn't happened, has it?
So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.
Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.
If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.
I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.
I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?
If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
The report demonstrates the scale of the problem, one you deny.
The current Govt won the election promising not to increase National Insurance. It then increased National Insurance. Is that undemocratic?
The current Govt won the election on the basis of its “oven-ready” Brexit deal. It now wants to break that deal. Is that undemocratic?
I didn't deny it was a problem, I didn't say anything about the scale of the problem.
We are prepared to live with the scale of the problem, despite knowing the problem, without either shutting down the border, or accepting alignment on duty. It is proof that we don't need to be aligned, if we don't want to be, even if stuff crosses the border. If it causes a problem, you deal with the problem, you don't cut off your own nose to spite your face.
Yes it was terrible that the government increased NI and I wrote a thread header bemoaning it and quit the party over it.
Yet you support breaking the NIP, which was also in the manifesto?
I have never advocated breaking the NIP, I advocate invoking Article 16 of the NIP and using that to neuter the NIP until solutions are found that 100% remove the threat to social cohesion or trade diversion.
If no solutions are ever found, then A16 can remain invoked forever and the NIP will have died a death, still in force technically but neutered by one of its own provisions.
The manifesto promised to implement the NIP. You are advocating effectively killing the NIP. That would be like introducing a new tax called Country Insurance that effectively increased NI, but pretended to do otherwise because of a manifesto pledge. You would've seen through such a ruse.
You demand the Govt stick to manifesto pledges, except here. This does not appear to be consistent to me.
Bullshit, I am calling for the safeguards that were agreed to be respected.
If the NIP is "effectively killed" by its own safeguarding, then that is utterly reasonable. That is the purpose of safeguarding, to do a risk assessment, identify risks (known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns) and if a risk, foreseen or unforeseen, arises that requires safeguarding you deal with it.
The safeguarding said we would prevent threats to "social cohesion" or "trade diversion". That safeguarding must be respected. If the Protocol is leading either to threats to social cohesion, or to trade diversion, then proper safeguarding requires us to implement the safeguarding provisions and put a halt to the operations of the Protocol unless or until a solution that removes the risk of trade diversion or to social cohesion is able to be implemented.
That isn't breaking the Protocol, it is respecting the Protocol by following the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures.
Any business or other institution that disregarded its own safeguarding policy by saying "yes we knew that a risk was happening, but we chose not to implement safeguarding because that was a foreseeable risk so we disregarded our safeguarding policies" would be in serious trouble.
Why do you want to disregard the safeguarding article of the Protocol? Are you always so cavalier about safeguarding everywhere else.
Well there's the rub. I don't think this is about safeguarding mechanisms, about the NIP not working as it was intended to. It was clear how the NIP would work and the Govt signed up to it (having put it in its manifesto). It's just that, as Frost himself has explicitly said, they wanted a quick win and then they planned to re-negotiate later. The Govt signed up in bad faith, misleading the EU and misleading the voters.
The Govt signed up to something that they never intended to stick with. They broke their promise over the National Insurance, but at least that was for understandable reasons, an unexpected pandemic. With the NIP, they lied about what it was (Boris promising no paperwork) and lied about their intention to stick to it.
The Govt would also be in a much stronger position if it had actually implemented the agreement it signed up to (at its own insistence, not the EUs, don't forget), and then tried to change it later. Of course it never intended to, but the EU fell for it, not being quite so aware as many of us here that you shouldn't trust Johnson's word any further than you can throw him.
It has implemented it.
The safeguarding in Article 16 is part of the agreement it signed up to, what part of that do you find unacceptable?
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
Yes I suppose that is true although I don't remember Rochdale being quite so vituperatively in favour of Brexiting as @billglen was in favour of remaining. Rochdale it seems voted for a sensible Brexit which the govt has since trodden all over. I get that he would be disillusioned with the execution.
I voted to leave the EU. Had we left the EU and remained in an open co-operating trading relationship with the EEU and EUCU I would be quite happy.
The problems we have now are nothing to do with leaving the EU and everything to do with the stupidity of what we have done after leaving the EU.
That there are BR-type voices still saying "we hold all the cards, just walk away, what can they do" is the reason the government continue to screw up as much as they do. I will be polite and say that it is a logical fallacy to say something patently incorrect like "we hold all the cards", then watch all the evidence pile up demonstrating how this isn't true and then keep saying "we hold all the cards". Or providing fact-free theoretical lectures about how trade works as if that somehow changes the practical realities on the ground.
The difference between you and me is you have all these fictitious "problems" you're worried about like Kent, that I'm not.
As far as NI is concerned, yes it was a mistake to sequence it to deal with NI first before the trade arrangements were agreed but the EU insisted on it and Theresa May's "fight of the summer" over that ended on day 1 when she agreed to that sequencing.
We've been trying to undo the damage ever since. Invoking A16 could be the final step of reversing May and Hammond's catastrophic handling of Brexit, GB is already out of the EU's orbit, we just need to finish the job and have a solution for NI now.
That you genuinely believe that what you post is both realistic and sensible is almost sweet.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
Yes I suppose that is true although I don't remember Rochdale being quite so vituperatively in favour of Brexiting as @billglen was in favour of remaining. Rochdale it seems voted for a sensible Brexit which the govt has since trodden all over. I get that he would be disillusioned with the execution.
I voted to leave the EU. Had we left the EU and remained in an open co-operating trading relationship with the EEU and EUCU I would be quite happy.
The problems we have now are nothing to do with leaving the EU and everything to do with the stupidity of what we have done after leaving the EU.
That there are BR-type voices still saying "we hold all the cards, just walk away, what can they do" is the reason the government continue to screw up as much as they do. I will be polite and say that it is a logical fallacy to say something patently incorrect like "we hold all the cards", then watch all the evidence pile up demonstrating how this isn't true and then keep saying "we hold all the cards". Or providing fact-free theoretical lectures about how trade works as if that somehow changes the practical realities on the ground.
The baffling thing (OK, one of the baffling things) is that we keep getting to this point, with no follow-through. "Battle of the century" over the sequencing of the negotiations. Telling the EU they could go whistle for the divorce settlement. Give PM Boris any Irish Sea paperwork, so he could throw it in the bin. We're definitely going to trigger A16 once the big global summit is over.
And psychology 101 says that every time you make a threat (and they're basically the same threat each time) and don't follow through, you weaken your negotiating position. And whilst events before 2019 can be fairly laid at the feet of May, Davis et al, and events in 2019 can be blamed on Parliament (with only a modicum of dishonesty), Johnson has had total control of his side of the negotiation since December 2019. If he is flailing round like a fool, the most likely reason is that he is a fool.
(The reality is what it's always been. The UK always has the perogative to tear up existing agreements. Nobody else can stop us. But the idea that we can do that cost-free is for the birds, always was for the birds, and is the sort of thing most people grow out of as they emerge from adolescence.)
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
Lol. I voted Leave because the half-in/half-out status quo was unsustainable, and eventually we either had to be fully in, or out. And nobody on the Remain side was making the case for being fully in.
This is perfectly sensible. A twin track / two speed Europe had been talked about for some time and has just been floated - again - by Macron. We were going to be on the outer ring as we're not in Schengen or the Euro so better to go under our own steam on our own terms than be flung out there by centrifugal forces.
But - and its a very big but - what we have done since is fucking stupid. And runs utterly contrary to anything the governing party stands for. Still goes through the pretence of "lets cut costs and red tape" whilst creating reams of the stuff.
As a small business owner and company director I'm the exact kind of person the Tories would be out trying to woo. And Matt Parmo Vickers did exactly that just before I left Teesside. "Are you sure you aren't a Tory really?" And yet I get called all kinds of comedy names because I know how things work in the real world and don't believe the vapourware bullshit.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
Lol. I voted Leave because the half-in/half-out status quo was unsustainable, and eventually we either had to be fully in, or out. And nobody on the Remain side was making the case for being fully in.
Intersting. I voted Remain (on the basis of self interest), but in the belief that, within a few years a second vote would be for Out.
That is, when the proposals for a common European health service move forward, the "Sacred NHS" types would go TILT. Because any such European wider system would be mixed provision.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
For Johnson it's the vicarious thrill of a war, which is surely one of the top perks of being PM, without getting his vibe harshed by any British casualties. All he has to do is give away large amounts of other people's money.
Not just the PM. Richard Sherriff was on the radio the other day saying how UK society should alter its mindset and prepare for a potential nuclear exchange and that, surprise surprise, HMF should be hosed with money.
Of course the generals want another Cold War. All the money they want whilst knowing they will never actually have to do any fighting.
Spending more money on conventional capabilities in specific areas* isn't daft at all. Don't know what the berk means by 'planning for a potential nuclear exchange'. I would have thought planning how to avoid one would be more sensible.
*For example, the UK is piss poor in terms of ground based missile defence. If we can't do it ourselves, which we can't anytime soon, we should have a chat with Israel or S Korea about their kit (likely cheaper than that of the US).
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
Lol. I voted Leave because the half-in/half-out status quo was unsustainable, and eventually we either had to be fully in, or out. And nobody on the Remain side was making the case for being fully in.
This is perfectly sensible. A twin track / two speed Europe had been talked about for some time and has just been floated - again - by Macron. We were going to be on the outer ring as we're not in Schengen or the Euro so better to go under our own steam on our own terms than be flung out there by centrifugal forces.
But - and its a very big but - what we have done since is fucking stupid.
Oh, sure. But since far too many Remainers spent far too long refusing to accept defeat, we got stuck with what was acceptable to Leavers only because the most fucking stupid thing of all would have been for the public to have voted to Leave but the politicians to have overturned that vote.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
Yes I suppose that is true although I don't remember Rochdale being quite so vituperatively in favour of Brexiting as @billglen was in favour of remaining. Rochdale it seems voted for a sensible Brexit which the govt has since trodden all over. I get that he would be disillusioned with the execution.
I voted to leave the EU. Had we left the EU and remained in an open co-operating trading relationship with the EEU and EUCU I would be quite happy.
The problems we have now are nothing to do with leaving the EU and everything to do with the stupidity of what we have done after leaving the EU.
That there are BR-type voices still saying "we hold all the cards, just walk away, what can they do" is the reason the government continue to screw up as much as they do. I will be polite and say that it is a logical fallacy to say something patently incorrect like "we hold all the cards", then watch all the evidence pile up demonstrating how this isn't true and then keep saying "we hold all the cards". Or providing fact-free theoretical lectures about how trade works as if that somehow changes the practical realities on the ground.
The baffling thing (OK, one of the baffling things) is that we keep getting to this point, with no follow-through. "Battle of the century" over the sequencing of the negotiations. Telling the EU they could go whistle for the divorce settlement. Give PM Boris any Irish Sea paperwork, so he could throw it in the bin. We're definitely going to trigger A16 once the big global summit is over.
And psychology 101 says that every time you make a threat (and they're basically the same threat each time) and don't follow through, you weaken your negotiating position. And whilst events before 2019 can be fairly laid at the feet of May, Davis et al, and events in 2019 can be blamed on Parliament (with only a modicum of dishonesty), Johnson has had total control of his side of the negotiation since December 2019. If he is flailing round like a fool, the most likely reason is that he is a fool.
(The reality is what it's always been. The UK always has the perogative to tear up existing agreements. Nobody else can stop us. But the idea that we can do that cost-free is for the birds, always was for the birds, and is the sort of thing most people grow out of as they emerge from adolescence.)
You could write a book on how to negotiate. Using the UK as the patsy example for how to screw up every possible step. Concept, prep, stages, keeping track, a clear agreement, implementation, post-analysis. The whole smash - we've fucked it.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
The only way he's 'boxing them in' is by not suing for peace and sacrificing a large slug of his country, with no guarantee of avoiding a repeat in a few years time.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
Lol. I voted Leave because the half-in/half-out status quo was unsustainable, and eventually we either had to be fully in, or out. And nobody on the Remain side was making the case for being fully in.
Intersting. I voted Remain (on the basis of self interest), but in the belief that, within a few years a second vote would be for Out.
That is, when the proposals for a common European health service move forward, the "Sacred NHS" types would go TILT. Because any such European wider system would be mixed provision.
I didn't believe that a second vote would have been permitted - a vote to Remain would have been seen as an endorsement of The Project, and if any future British government had tried to resist they would have been beaten back with "you had the chance to leave, now you need to show you're good Europeans".
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
If you are referring to it's behaviour towards the UK, you cannot surely regard our PM and his acolytes, such as JRM as saints.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
Lol. I voted Leave because the half-in/half-out status quo was unsustainable, and eventually we either had to be fully in, or out. And nobody on the Remain side was making the case for being fully in.
Intersting. I voted Remain (on the basis of self interest), but in the belief that, within a few years a second vote would be for Out.
That is, when the proposals for a common European health service move forward, the "Sacred NHS" types would go TILT. Because any such European wider system would be mixed provision.
I didn't believe that a second vote would have been permitted - a vote to Remain would have been seen as an endorsement of The Project, and if any future British government had tried to resist they would have been beaten back with "you had the chance to leave, now you need to show you're good Europeans".
The NHS would have made a second vote truly cross-party. How many % of the population are die-in-a-ditch for the NHS?
If such an issue had come up, then the Labour party couldn't fight it.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
There is, apparently, a bit of anger at Zelensky in some quarters for how he has boxed people in, using PR. Shows a lack of understanding of the "realities" of the situation, they say.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
The only way he's 'boxing them in' is by not suing for peace and sacrificing a large slug of his country, with no guarantee of avoiding a repeat in a few years time.
Exactly - jolly rude, isn't he?
EDIT: it's also that by brilliant PR work, he has made sure that any attempt to put pressure on Ukraine for any such sacrifice will simply make the pressuriser look like a Putin arselicker.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
Thjere's nothing like sealing the deal in an argument by calling someone a twat. Maybe you need a lie down?
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
It is certainly turning into Vietnam full fat for the Russian military
So we keep hearing.
In the early days of the Vietnam war the US press were full of stories about how the VC were getting spanked, the government were upbeat, the communists are taking terrible casualties and can't hang on much longer.
And look what happened there.
The early days of the Vietnam war didn't involve the Americans (other than their giving France a lot of money) - it was the French getting a spanking.
If they'd just let Vietnam kick out the French, they could probably have had decent relations with the new regime.
Eisenhower handed Kennedy a hospital pass, and the latter copped a bullet just as he was planning how not to get involved militarily.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
It is certainly turning into Vietnam full fat for the Russian military
So we keep hearing.
In the early days of the Vietnam war the US press were full of stories about how the VC were getting spanked, the government were upbeat, the communists are taking terrible casualties and can't hang on much longer.
And look what happened there.
The early days of the Vietnam war didn't involve the Americans (other than their giving France a lot of money) - it was the French getting a spanking.
If they'd just let Vietnam kick out the French, they could probably have had decent relations with the new regime.
Eisenhower handed Kennedy a hospital pass, and the latter copped a bullet just as he was planning how not to get involved militarily.
Macnamara was in favour of intervention until he really sat down and thought about it.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
Lol. I voted Leave because the half-in/half-out status quo was unsustainable, and eventually we either had to be fully in, or out. And nobody on the Remain side was making the case for being fully in.
This is perfectly sensible. A twin track / two speed Europe had been talked about for some time and has just been floated - again - by Macron. We were going to be on the outer ring as we're not in Schengen or the Euro so better to go under our own steam on our own terms than be flung out there by centrifugal forces.
But - and its a very big but - what we have done since is fucking stupid.
Oh, sure. But since far too many Remainers spent far too long refusing to accept defeat, we got stuck with what was acceptable to Leavers only because the most fucking stupid thing of all would have been for the public to have voted to Leave but the politicians to have overturned that vote.
Ancient history as it is, those "Remainers [who] spent far too long refusing to accept defeat" were democratically-elected representatives working on behalf of their constituents. We returned a hung parliament which indicated a split in the country which was reflected in parliament. Democracy in action.
Or should, say, Labour MPs "accept defeat" and vote through everything the government suggests.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.
Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.
The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.
But that hasn't happened, has it?
So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.
Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.
If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.
I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.
I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?
If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
The report demonstrates the scale of the problem, one you deny.
The current Govt won the election promising not to increase National Insurance. It then increased National Insurance. Is that undemocratic?
The current Govt won the election on the basis of its “oven-ready” Brexit deal. It now wants to break that deal. Is that undemocratic?
I didn't deny it was a problem, I didn't say anything about the scale of the problem.
We are prepared to live with the scale of the problem, despite knowing the problem, without either shutting down the border, or accepting alignment on duty. It is proof that we don't need to be aligned, if we don't want to be, even if stuff crosses the border. If it causes a problem, you deal with the problem, you don't cut off your own nose to spite your face.
Yes it was terrible that the government increased NI and I wrote a thread header bemoaning it and quit the party over it.
Yet you support breaking the NIP, which was also in the manifesto?
I have never advocated breaking the NIP, I advocate invoking Article 16 of the NIP and using that to neuter the NIP until solutions are found that 100% remove the threat to social cohesion or trade diversion.
If no solutions are ever found, then A16 can remain invoked forever and the NIP will have died a death, still in force technically but neutered by one of its own provisions.
The manifesto promised to implement the NIP. You are advocating effectively killing the NIP. That would be like introducing a new tax called Country Insurance that effectively increased NI, but pretended to do otherwise because of a manifesto pledge. You would've seen through such a ruse.
You demand the Govt stick to manifesto pledges, except here. This does not appear to be consistent to me.
Bullshit, I am calling for the safeguards that were agreed to be respected.
If the NIP is "effectively killed" by its own safeguarding, then that is utterly reasonable. That is the purpose of safeguarding, to do a risk assessment, identify risks (known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns) and if a risk, foreseen or unforeseen, arises that requires safeguarding you deal with it.
The safeguarding said we would prevent threats to "social cohesion" or "trade diversion". That safeguarding must be respected. If the Protocol is leading either to threats to social cohesion, or to trade diversion, then proper safeguarding requires us to implement the safeguarding provisions and put a halt to the operations of the Protocol unless or until a solution that removes the risk of trade diversion or to social cohesion is able to be implemented.
That isn't breaking the Protocol, it is respecting the Protocol by following the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures.
Any business or other institution that disregarded its own safeguarding policy by saying "yes we knew that a risk was happening, but we chose not to implement safeguarding because that was a foreseeable risk so we disregarded our safeguarding policies" would be in serious trouble.
Why do you want to disregard the safeguarding article of the Protocol? Are you always so cavalier about safeguarding everywhere else.
Well there's the rub. I don't think this is about safeguarding mechanisms, about the NIP not working as it was intended to. It was clear how the NIP would work and the Govt signed up to it (having put it in its manifesto). It's just that, as Frost himself has explicitly said, they wanted a quick win and then they planned to re-negotiate later. The Govt signed up in bad faith, misleading the EU and misleading the voters.
The Govt signed up to something that they never intended to stick with. They broke their promise over the National Insurance, but at least that was for understandable reasons, an unexpected pandemic. With the NIP, they lied about what it was (Boris promising no paperwork) and lied about their intention to stick to it.
It was a matter of public record at the time that the priority was to get a deal and renegotiate later, that was never disputed at the time. It was all part and parcel of the EU's preferred sequencing. Many were saying we should agree to the backstop because we could renegotiate it later, only the backstop had no unilateral exit and no safeguarding, so Frost's deal is infinitely superior.
So no, looking to renegotiate now that we have the TCA and can renegotiate sensibly post-Brexit isn't dishonesty, it is the sequencing as it was meant to be.
Besides if the problems were foreseeable, then the usage of the safeguarding to prevent or deal with those problems was also foreseeable. That is quite literally the purpose of having safeguarding, is it not?
What is the point of safeguarding if you don't implement it when a known risk comes to pass?
Balderdash! This was sold as an "oven-ready" deal that would "get Brexit done". It was not sold as a first draft to be improved later.
Don't sign up to an international treaty if you're not going to stick to it.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
Yes I suppose that is true although I don't remember Rochdale being quite so vituperatively in favour of Brexiting as @billglen was in favour of remaining. Rochdale it seems voted for a sensible Brexit which the govt has since trodden all over. I get that he would be disillusioned with the execution.
I voted to leave the EU. Had we left the EU and remained in an open co-operating trading relationship with the EEU and EUCU I would be quite happy.
The problems we have now are nothing to do with leaving the EU and everything to do with the stupidity of what we have done after leaving the EU.
That there are BR-type voices still saying "we hold all the cards, just walk away, what can they do" is the reason the government continue to screw up as much as they do. I will be polite and say that it is a logical fallacy to say something patently incorrect like "we hold all the cards", then watch all the evidence pile up demonstrating how this isn't true and then keep saying "we hold all the cards". Or providing fact-free theoretical lectures about how trade works as if that somehow changes the practical realities on the ground.
You see if only you had voted Tyndall Dictator For Life and let me take us into EFTA and thence into the EEA then things would have been far better. I could have exiled Farage to St Helena, thrown Johnson in the deepest dungeon in Christendom and made May ambassador to Ulan Bator.
Newcastle United’s new away kit next season will be the green and white colours of Saudi Arabia, the country whose public investment fund owns 80 per cent of the club.
A leaked version of Newcastle’s second-choice strip for next season, made by Castore, shows it is extremely similar to the first choice worn by the Saudi Arabia national side in 2020.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
If you are referring to it's behaviour towards the UK, you cannot surely regard our PM and his acolytes, such as JRM as saints.
UvdL does make one cringe a bit, though!
Though she shows a lot less enthusiasm for giving away Ukraine than do either Macron or Scholz.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
Yes I suppose that is true although I don't remember Rochdale being quite so vituperatively in favour of Brexiting as @billglen was in favour of remaining. Rochdale it seems voted for a sensible Brexit which the govt has since trodden all over. I get that he would be disillusioned with the execution.
I voted to leave the EU. Had we left the EU and remained in an open co-operating trading relationship with the EEU and EUCU I would be quite happy.
The problems we have now are nothing to do with leaving the EU and everything to do with the stupidity of what we have done after leaving the EU.
That there are BR-type voices still saying "we hold all the cards, just walk away, what can they do" is the reason the government continue to screw up as much as they do. I will be polite and say that it is a logical fallacy to say something patently incorrect like "we hold all the cards", then watch all the evidence pile up demonstrating how this isn't true and then keep saying "we hold all the cards". Or providing fact-free theoretical lectures about how trade works as if that somehow changes the practical realities on the ground.
The baffling thing (OK, one of the baffling things) is that we keep getting to this point, with no follow-through. "Battle of the century" over the sequencing of the negotiations. Telling the EU they could go whistle for the divorce settlement. Give PM Boris any Irish Sea paperwork, so he could throw it in the bin. We're definitely going to trigger A16 once the big global summit is over.
And psychology 101 says that every time you make a threat (and they're basically the same threat each time) and don't follow through, you weaken your negotiating position. And whilst events before 2019 can be fairly laid at the feet of May, Davis et al, and events in 2019 can be blamed on Parliament (with only a modicum of dishonesty), Johnson has had total control of his side of the negotiation since December 2019. If he is flailing round like a fool, the most likely reason is that he is a fool.
(The reality is what it's always been. The UK always has the perogative to tear up existing agreements. Nobody else can stop us. But the idea that we can do that cost-free is for the birds, always was for the birds, and is the sort of thing most people grow out of as they emerge from adolescence.)
You could write a book on how to negotiate. Using the UK as the patsy example for how to screw up every possible step. Concept, prep, stages, keeping track, a clear agreement, implementation, post-analysis. The whole smash - we've fucked it.
The bizzaro thing, this seems really obvious to me, and I haven't negotiated a business deal in my life. OK, teaching teenagers gives you a certain insight into human evil and realpolitik, but I don't enjoy haggling and am therefore not very skilled at it.
And I can see that HMG is making a complete horlicks of things, and why they are getting it wrong.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
Lol. I voted Leave because the half-in/half-out status quo was unsustainable, and eventually we either had to be fully in, or out. And nobody on the Remain side was making the case for being fully in.
This is perfectly sensible. A twin track / two speed Europe had been talked about for some time and has just been floated - again - by Macron. We were going to be on the outer ring as we're not in Schengen or the Euro so better to go under our own steam on our own terms than be flung out there by centrifugal forces.
But - and its a very big but - what we have done since is fucking stupid.
Oh, sure. But since far too many Remainers spent far too long refusing to accept defeat, we got stuck with what was acceptable to Leavers only because the most fucking stupid thing of all would have been for the public to have voted to Leave but the politicians to have overturned that vote.
Ancient history as it is, those "Remainers [who] spent far too long refusing to accept defeat" were democratically-elected representatives working on behalf of their constituents. We returned a hung parliament which indicated a split in the country which was reflected in parliament. Democracy in action.
Or should, say, Labour MPs "accept defeat" and vote through everything the government suggests.
You do recall that at the 2017 election, Labour stood on the platform of accepting the referendum result? And then spent the next two yeard rejecting every possible form of implementing the referendum result because they decided it was more important to play party politics to damage the government?
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
Yes I suppose that is true although I don't remember Rochdale being quite so vituperatively in favour of Brexiting as @billglen was in favour of remaining. Rochdale it seems voted for a sensible Brexit which the govt has since trodden all over. I get that he would be disillusioned with the execution.
I voted to leave the EU. Had we left the EU and remained in an open co-operating trading relationship with the EEU and EUCU I would be quite happy.
The problems we have now are nothing to do with leaving the EU and everything to do with the stupidity of what we have done after leaving the EU.
That there are BR-type voices still saying "we hold all the cards, just walk away, what can they do" is the reason the government continue to screw up as much as they do. I will be polite and say that it is a logical fallacy to say something patently incorrect like "we hold all the cards", then watch all the evidence pile up demonstrating how this isn't true and then keep saying "we hold all the cards". Or providing fact-free theoretical lectures about how trade works as if that somehow changes the practical realities on the ground.
The baffling thing (OK, one of the baffling things) is that we keep getting to this point, with no follow-through. "Battle of the century" over the sequencing of the negotiations. Telling the EU they could go whistle for the divorce settlement. Give PM Boris any Irish Sea paperwork, so he could throw it in the bin. We're definitely going to trigger A16 once the big global summit is over.
And psychology 101 says that every time you make a threat (and they're basically the same threat each time) and don't follow through, you weaken your negotiating position. And whilst events before 2019 can be fairly laid at the feet of May, Davis et al, and events in 2019 can be blamed on Parliament (with only a modicum of dishonesty), Johnson has had total control of his side of the negotiation since December 2019. If he is flailing round like a fool, the most likely reason is that he is a fool.
(The reality is what it's always been. The UK always has the perogative to tear up existing agreements. Nobody else can stop us. But the idea that we can do that cost-free is for the birds, always was for the birds, and is the sort of thing most people grow out of as they emerge from adolescence.)
You could write a book on how to negotiate. Using the UK as the patsy example for how to screw up every possible step. Concept, prep, stages, keeping track, a clear agreement, implementation, post-analysis. The whole smash - we've fucked it.
You do not understand.
Five years ago @BartholomewRoberts told us that the UK government should abandon all border checks and let the EU police the NI border if they wanted to.
At which point the UK government, rather than entertain such a notion, actually decided to divide its own country and institute an internal customs border in the UK, something that, it was said, no British PM could or should ever do.
And lo as recently as an hour ago, @BartholomewRoberts was saying exactly the same thing - that the UK government should abandon.....
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
There is no one thing in terms of policy or the nature of society that Brexit voters voted for - like a return to the 1950s. They are often in fact unfairly criticised for having a multiplicity of aims. There is nothing wrong with that.
Their unity coalesced around exactly two things: (1) Who decides; and (2) having a system where the voters could vote out the legislators. the Tony Benn principle about power: How can I get rid of you?
Nearly all Brexit voters were and are political centrists. Remain cannot grasp the essential point that extremists could not win that referendum. There aren't enough of them to go round.
Some who do get that point go round it by describing them as thick instead. Wrong.
Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky
A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
For Johnson it's the vicarious thrill of a war, which is surely one of the top perks of being PM, without getting his vibe harshed by any British casualties. All he has to do is give away large amounts of other people's money.
Not just the PM. Richard Sherriff was on the radio the other day saying how UK society should alter its mindset and prepare for a potential nuclear exchange and that, surprise surprise, HMF should be hosed with money.
Of course the generals want another Cold War. All the money they want whilst knowing they will never actually have to do any fighting.
Spending more money on conventional capabilities in specific areas* isn't daft at all. Don't know what the berk means by 'planning for a potential nuclear exchange'. I would have thought planning how to avoid one would be more sensible.
*For example, the UK is piss poor in terms of ground based missile defence. If we can't do it ourselves, which we can't anytime soon, we should have a chat with Israel or S Korea about their kit (likely cheaper than that of the US).
Land based SM-3 is probably the best out there at the moment. Arrow 3 as more capability but is still aimed at (ha!) medium range missiles, not full ICBMs.
Getting SM-3 to play nice with the SAMPSON radar might be possible - though it is more a matter of replicating the datalink between the missile and the AEGIS system.
Newcastle United’s new away kit next season will be the green and white colours of Saudi Arabia, the country whose public investment fund owns 80 per cent of the club.
A leaked version of Newcastle’s second-choice strip for next season, made by Castore, shows it is extremely similar to the first choice worn by the Saudi Arabia national side in 2020.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
Lol. I voted Leave because the half-in/half-out status quo was unsustainable, and eventually we either had to be fully in, or out. And nobody on the Remain side was making the case for being fully in.
Intersting. I voted Remain (on the basis of self interest), but in the belief that, within a few years a second vote would be for Out.
That is, when the proposals for a common European health service move forward, the "Sacred NHS" types would go TILT. Because any such European wider system would be mixed provision.
I didn't believe that a second vote would have been permitted - a vote to Remain would have been seen as an endorsement of The Project, and if any future British government had tried to resist they would have been beaten back with "you had the chance to leave, now you need to show you're good Europeans".
The alternate history of a narrow Remain win could have gone several ways. The closest analogy is perhaps Scotland, and following that through we’d have Nigel Farage as PM right now.
Oh dear. Life is just a little more complicated than you think it is. The real world is about compromise and subtlety, particularly in negotiation. It is not just about "force" and bombast.
You sound exactly like those French diplomats and German intellectuals who sneer at Ukraine's lack of subtlety and poor understanding of the greater issues at stake.
And you sound like a complete twat that has completely changed his position from one massive extreme to the other. Your EU-philia used to make even me who is a Brexit-sceptic cringe, and now you are a fully fledged headbanging swivel-eyed Brexiteer. That is not a subtle change, it is a full on credibility shred. When everyone else is gradually realising that Brexit is pointless, you fully embrace it. When does the wind change again?
While I am as wide-eyed amazed as anyone (everyone) else at @williamglenn's transformation I would hesitate to go down the "complete twat" route. Such a dramatic conversion, assuming it's not trolling, which it very possibly is, indicates something going on more than we may know.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
The xenophobic comments he now makes put him firmly in the "complete twat" camp from my perspective. I have to wonder whether his account has been hacked by someone else.
That's ridiculous, yes he's had an about-turn, but so has Rochdale and nobody questions that, but he's never said anything xenophobic.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
The zeal of the convert is rarely a compliment. People do change their mind, but rarely from one extreme to the other. It is quite frankly ludicrous and lacks credibility.
Just because there a re a lot of prominent vocal bad losers from the Remain side doesn't mean that some of them didn't accept that they lost.
We are not all bad losers, there is a huge amount of amusement to be had from losing a referendum to a coalition of fruitcakes and xenophobes for someone with my ironic sense of humour. The reality is that many Leavers, such as yourself are really really bad winners, and that is hilarious. One has to assume that it is dawning on even you that it was pointless.
The way the EU and its supporters have carried on for the last six years rather justifies the vote, as it happens.
To you perhaps. You are now in a minority according to opinion polling. You keep trying to convince yourself though, it provides amusement for the rest of us.
If you aren't going to make the case for rejoining as a full member, including the euro and Schengen, then opinion polling is as irrelevant now as it was wrong then.
I am not in favour of rejoining, though when, as seems likely, the young vote to do so, and assuming I am still alive I shall laugh and laugh at all you swivel-eyed nostalgia freaks who thought you could take England back to the 1950s.
Lol. I voted Leave because the half-in/half-out status quo was unsustainable, and eventually we either had to be fully in, or out. And nobody on the Remain side was making the case for being fully in.
This is perfectly sensible. A twin track / two speed Europe had been talked about for some time and has just been floated - again - by Macron. We were going to be on the outer ring as we're not in Schengen or the Euro so better to go under our own steam on our own terms than be flung out there by centrifugal forces.
But - and its a very big but - what we have done since is fucking stupid.
Oh, sure. But since far too many Remainers spent far too long refusing to accept defeat, we got stuck with what was acceptable to Leavers only because the most fucking stupid thing of all would have been for the public to have voted to Leave but the politicians to have overturned that vote.
Ancient history as it is, those "Remainers [who] spent far too long refusing to accept defeat" were democratically-elected representatives working on behalf of their constituents. We returned a hung parliament which indicated a split in the country which was reflected in parliament. Democracy in action.
Or should, say, Labour MPs "accept defeat" and vote through everything the government suggests.
I don't disagree with you mostly. But of course there were plenty of those ultra-Remainers who went into the 2017 election swearing blind they were committed to Brexit and who then did their very best to reverse the decision once they were back in parliament. Certainly not all by any means but a key core on the Tory side. At the same time there were others who said they would vote for a reasonable Brexit deal and then who fought tooth and nail for the hardest Brexit possible.
Very few of our elected representatives at that time can honestly claim to have been representing the best interests of those who elected them.
Comments
Of course the generals want another Cold War. All the money they want whilst knowing they will never actually have to do any fighting.
i.e. they can't demand that Ukraine sacrifices a bunch of stuff so they can get the war stopped and get back to being/selling from Russia.
Some people are crazy.
If you're not prepared to walk away, you aren't going to get very far in negotiations.
This would make starting Nordstream 2 impossible, for example. Yes, some people still want it.
In the early days of the Vietnam war the US press were full of stories about how the VC were getting spanked, the government were upbeat, the communists are taking terrible casualties and can't hang on much longer.
And look what happened there.
I've posted this before, but maybe the answer is for the RAF to start flying sorties over Dublin.
Force and realpolitik is manifestly what the EU and its constituent countries listen to, and the notion that they play by the rules of international law is the most unmitigated bullsh8t going.
Yeah, good days.
You are clearly a nutter
You almost always need a walk-away point. But in some negotiations where you are in a submissive position you can't walk away - because the consequences are worse / more expensive / more damaging than a negotiated position a little outside your preferred position.
You come across as a gobby 2 o'clock "take it or leave it" merchant. Which is fine when its a transactional negotiation to buy something you don't really need. But that isn't us or the negotiation we are in.
Your fundamental inability to map the variables in this negotiation, to understand the other side's strengths / needs / break points or the values and criticality of your own positions would have you stitched up worse than Lord Frost was.
Does anyone, apart from SOME members of the French public, and @roger - buy this stuff? Excruciating
Probably because the Russian Army is really a bunch of trainspotters.
I am just going by the evidence. Macron and Scholtz are happy to cede territory to Putin to make it stop. We are told they and their EU counterparts are sticklers for international law.
That is manifestly untrue its a blatant remainer lie, its just you hate any criticism whatever of your beloved EU.
“ERDOGAN: TURKEY DOESN'T FAVOR SWEDEN, FINLAND NATO MEMBERSHIP.
#Turkey #Finland #Sweden”
Too many terrorist organisations in Sweden and Finland, apparently.
I've already suggested that Germany give Russia Schleswig-Holstein as a peace offering.
Perhaps Macron could offer Corsica to Russia?
We are told these are the paragons and upholders of international law with whom we may not break trust over Northern Ireland. What a gigantic remainer lie.
A minor oddity.
Fact.
So we will get a round of "I might say no, if I don't get a sweety", from various countries.
Hungary will be the big one, I think.
And I include myself in that entreaty.
Orban, I'm not so sure about.
EDIT: Throwing a country out of NATO would be very, very difficult. And not on the grounds of having vetoed an accession.
People can change their mind and the notion of the "zeal of the convert" exists for a reason.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61433724
But we shall see - earlier this week we saw upwards of a 700 pt swing on the Dow and it's "only" up 350-odd points now. Plenty of time for the sell in May crowd.
The Govt signed up to something that they never intended to stick with. They broke their promise over the National Insurance, but at least that was for understandable reasons, an unexpected pandemic. With the NIP, they lied about what it was (Boris promising no paperwork) and lied about their intention to stick to it.
So no, looking to renegotiate now that we have the TCA and can renegotiate sensibly post-Brexit isn't dishonesty, it is the sequencing as it was meant to be.
Besides if the problems were foreseeable, then the usage of the safeguarding to prevent or deal with those problems was also foreseeable. That is quite literally the purpose of having safeguarding, is it not?
What is the point of safeguarding if you don't implement it when a known risk comes to pass?
The problems we have now are nothing to do with leaving the EU and everything to do with the stupidity of what we have done after leaving the EU.
That there are BR-type voices still saying "we hold all the cards, just walk away, what can they do" is the reason the government continue to screw up as much as they do. I will be polite and say that it is a logical fallacy to say something patently incorrect like "we hold all the cards", then watch all the evidence pile up demonstrating how this isn't true and then keep saying "we hold all the cards". Or providing fact-free theoretical lectures about how trade works as if that somehow changes the practical realities on the ground.
As far as NI is concerned, yes it was a mistake to sequence it to deal with NI first before the trade arrangements were agreed but the EU insisted on it and Theresa May's "fight of the summer" over that ended on day 1 when she agreed to that sequencing.
We've been trying to undo the damage ever since. Invoking A16 could be the final step of reversing May and Hammond's catastrophic handling of Brexit, GB is already out of the EU's orbit, we just need to finish the job and have a solution for NI now.
To wit: anyone that refers to “my ironic sense of humour” generally has no sense of humour, least of all “ironic”.
QED
The safeguarding in Article 16 is part of the agreement it signed up to, what part of that do you find unacceptable?
George Redmond has declared himself a candidate to lead his party in Scotland's largest city.
The Labour leader on Glasgow Council is facing a challenge for his job after his party lost another election to the SNP.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/glasgow-labour-leader-malcolm-cunning-26943423
"Just trigger A16. And then walk away".
Yep, that'll do it, thanks Ray.
And psychology 101 says that every time you make a threat (and they're basically the same threat each time) and don't follow through, you weaken your negotiating position. And whilst events before 2019 can be fairly laid at the feet of May, Davis et al, and events in 2019 can be blamed on Parliament (with only a modicum of dishonesty), Johnson has had total control of his side of the negotiation since December 2019. If he is flailing round like a fool, the most likely reason is that he is a fool.
(The reality is what it's always been. The UK always has the perogative to tear up existing agreements. Nobody else can stop us. But the idea that we can do that cost-free is for the birds, always was for the birds, and is the sort of thing most people grow out of as they emerge from adolescence.)
But - and its a very big but - what we have done since is fucking stupid. And runs utterly contrary to anything the governing party stands for. Still goes through the pretence of "lets cut costs and red tape" whilst creating reams of the stuff.
As a small business owner and company director I'm the exact kind of person the Tories would be out trying to woo. And Matt Parmo Vickers did exactly that just before I left Teesside. "Are you sure you aren't a Tory really?" And yet I get called all kinds of comedy names because I know how things work in the real world and don't believe the vapourware bullshit.
Any hint Mr Redmond might do a reverse Aberdeen and join fellow social democrats rather than Unionists?
That is, when the proposals for a common European health service move forward, the "Sacred NHS" types would go TILT. Because any such European wider system would be mixed provision.
Don't know what the berk means by 'planning for a potential nuclear exchange'. I would have thought planning how to avoid one would be more sensible.
*For example, the UK is piss poor in terms of ground based missile defence. If we can't do it ourselves, which we can't anytime soon, we should have a chat with Israel or S Korea about their kit (likely cheaper than that of the US).
UvdL does make one cringe a bit, though!
If such an issue had come up, then the Labour party couldn't fight it.
EDIT: it's also that by brilliant PR work, he has made sure that any attempt to put pressure on Ukraine for any such sacrifice will simply make the pressuriser look like a Putin arselicker.
If they'd just let Vietnam kick out the French, they could probably have had decent relations with the new regime.
Eisenhower handed Kennedy a hospital pass, and the latter copped a bullet just as he was planning how not to get involved militarily.
Or should, say, Labour MPs "accept defeat" and vote through everything the government suggests.
Don't sign up to an international treaty if you're not going to stick to it.
Things would have gone swimmingly from then on.
If only...sigh...
Newcastle United’s new away kit next season will be the green and white colours of Saudi Arabia, the country whose public investment fund owns 80 per cent of the club.
A leaked version of Newcastle’s second-choice strip for next season, made by Castore, shows it is extremely similar to the first choice worn by the Saudi Arabia national side in 2020.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-newcastle-united-change-kit-will-be-in-saudi-arabia-colours-2q95nzrjg
And I can see that HMG is making a complete horlicks of things, and why they are getting it wrong.
Five years ago @BartholomewRoberts told us that the UK government should abandon all border checks and let the EU police the NI border if they wanted to.
At which point the UK government, rather than entertain such a notion, actually decided to divide its own country and institute an internal customs border in the UK, something that, it was said, no British PM could or should ever do.
And lo as recently as an hour ago, @BartholomewRoberts was saying exactly the same thing - that the UK government should abandon.....
Their unity coalesced around exactly two things: (1) Who decides; and (2) having a system where the voters could vote out the legislators. the Tony Benn principle about power: How can I get rid of you?
Nearly all Brexit voters were and are political centrists. Remain cannot grasp the essential point that extremists could not win that referendum. There aren't enough of them to go round.
Some who do get that point go round it by describing them as thick instead. Wrong.
Getting SM-3 to play nice with the SAMPSON radar might be possible - though it is more a matter of replicating the datalink between the missile and the AEGIS system.
Very few of our elected representatives at that time can honestly claim to have been representing the best interests of those who elected them.