Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Wednesday afternoon open thread – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
    Yes.

    The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.

    The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.

    Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.

    Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
    SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
    Democracy.

    The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
    Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
    It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
    Precisely, if we joined the bloc we'd have MEPs, so a say in the rules.

    Being aligned as proposed but without joining the bloc, we'd have been bound by new regulations like GDPR without even getting a say in them. That is undemocratic.
    Nope because as I already explained the EFTA members of the EEA take part in all levels of development of new regulation including proposals and the only thing they do not take part in is the final vote. But unlike EU members if they don't agree in a mild way then they can adjust the regulations under their own Parliamentary process - alignment rather than conformance - and if they don't agree strongly then they can opt out. The only way for an EU member to opt out, given that most of the decisions are by QMV, is to leave entirely.
    And if say Norway wanted to "opt out" of the GDPR then what would they have to opt out from? And if a present Norway government wanted to pass something like the GDPR but a future elected government wanted to "opt out" could they rip that up, or would it be established law and the only way they could leave it would be to leave?

    Though you haven't answered my question. Since we have a trade agreement already, and since you don't want customs, what are the major benefits we would gain from replacing the TCA with EFTA or EEA?
    Well for a start the TCA doesn't cover a lot of the trade in services. No passporting, no mutual recognition of qualifications, no automatic access to EU markets for services and aviation. These are included in the EEA.

    For me also the principle of freedom of movement is very appealing. Not for me personally. As I have said before I work extensively across the EU and overseas and have no issues with some very minor extra bits of paperwork. But on principle I object to barriers to free movement.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,249
    IshmaelZ said:

    Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.



    Ooh, that bread looks good
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    edited June 2022
    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    What we need is a referendum, to finish this argument once and for all

    You are arguing for a second vote...

    Traitor!!!
    It was a joke


    However, on reflection, I wonder if a referendum is the only way of solving this. It is the referendum that, perhaps, we should have had as part of a two-stage process in the first place - Remain or Leave for the first vote, then, if Leave, what kind of Leave

    Imagine if Cameron had offered this. He didn’t because he was too scared he’d get “Leave” in the first vote, if people knew they had the backstop of choosing Hard or Soft Brexit after that. What a twat he was. A monumental failure of statecraft

    Anyway, it’s time to have that referendum. Hard or Soft Brexit. Labour could do it. But to do it they’d have to face down nutters like you and say Sorry, Rejoin will not be an option

    I might actually vote for a Labour party that had the wisdom and maturity to offer this.
    EEA would have won 70/30, minimum. But Leave would have won by close to 60/40.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Andy_JS said:

    "Liz Truss ousts Foreign Office adviser who called for Boris Johnson to resign"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-taxes-pmqs-tory-mps-live-2sgm8vbgv

    If fairness if you do not support the government should you really be in it?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    Farooq said:

    Mr. Pete, one does wonder what was going through Labour's collective head on that.

    Did they think if May got ousted the Conservatives would do anything but move in a more sceptical direction?

    May's deal was the most pro-EU one they were going to get.

    They thought they could overturn the result of the referendum
    They were hoping the Tories would come to their senses and support a softer Brexit of the kind now being advocated by noted Remoaner Daniel Hannan. Unfortunately the Tories whipped their MPs to vote those options down, replaced May with psychopathic liar Boris Johnson, and came up with a plan even dafter than May's, which they are now trying to unpick.
    But yes, clearly all of this is the fault of the Labour Party.
    Dan Hannan always advocated the sort of soft Brexit I wanted. He has not changed his view on that.

    But yes it is amusing and a little sad that it was the actions of the irreconciled Remain fanatics that allowed the narrative, and the type of Brexit, to be driven by the hard Brexiteers.

    Were they primarily or even largely responsible for where we are now? No.

    Did they help contribute to it and could they have helped to prevent it if they had not been so hell bent on reversing the referendum? Undoubtedly yes.

    The type of Brexit we ended up with was born of hardliners on both sides. They both made sure there could be no compromise.
    The Labour Party voted for compromise, the Tories whipped their MPs to oppose it. Those are the facts.
    No the Labour Party did not vote for compromise.

    Looking at the breakdowns for the indicative proposals see if you can spot which one the Labour MPs preferred

    Proposal H - EFTA and EEA only 4 Labour MPs supported it. If they all had it would have passed.
    Proposal L - Revoke article 50 - 111 Labour MPs supported it.
    Proposal M - Rerun the referendum - 198 Labour MPs supported it.

    Of the other 5 proposals 2 were effectively No Deal and 3 demanded we stayed in the Customs Union which was impossible without us remaining as full members of the EU.

    So much for Labour supporting compromise.
    This is such a dishonest post, sorry. I cannot let it stand without correcting the record.

    The purpose of negotiating a customs union with the EU was to protect free trade the Irish border. You will note that Johnson's deal only achieved this goal by erecting trade barriers in the Irish Sea, which he is now trying to dismantle. In other words, a worthy goal that the government has failed to properly deliver.

    For the first round of indicative votes:

    Almost all Labour MPs voted for Ken Clarke's amendment K to negotiate a customs union as part of any deal. It was defeated by the Tories voting overwhelmingly against, with only a handful of Tories supporting it.

    Almost all Labour MPs voted for Nick Boles's Common Market 2.0, ammendment D, which proposed EEA/Efta membership and a comprehensive customs arrangement. It was defeated by the Tories. Only a handful of Tory MPs supported it.

    Almost all Labour MPs voted for the Labour Party's own compromise calling for close economic alignment with the EU, ammendment K. Voted down by the Tories.

    The revocation amendment was supported by a minority of Labour MPs and some Tory MPs but in any case was only in case of no deal to avoid a catastrophic economic impact.

    The confirmatory public vote wasn't a rerun of the referendum - it simply said the public should have a say on any Brexit deal that was negotiated. A reasonable way of breaking the parliamentary deadlock.

    George Eustice's EEA/Efta deal (amendment H) received little support from any party as without anything to say on a customs union it had no solution to the Irish border. Only 65 MPs voted for it.

    Yes, Labour voted for compromise. The Tories voted against.
    Wrong. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance.

    The Customs Union proposals were complete non starters. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. There are strange little exceptions for some of the tiny principalities like Monaco but they were never on offer to the UK.

    Nick Boles, Ken Clarkes and the Labour proposals all included Customs Union Membership. The Labour proposal was explicitly The Customs Union since it included the UK having a say in EU third party trade deals. Even though this was impossible.

    These proposals were just as dishonest as you are now being in trying to misrepresent them.

    Your party voted for chaos because they refused to accept the referendum result and that is exactly what they got.

    Wrong. You can be in a customs union with the EU without being in the EU, like Turkey. Is this perfect? No. That's why we shouldn't have left.
    Not all the proposals called explicitly for a customs union, they were calling for a customs arrangement of some kind to deal with the Irish border question. Otherwise, how is that problem solved? Not by the current deal, which the government is currently tearing up. What solution do you have?
    What compromise did Tory MPs vote for? None. Labour MPs voted for every compromise on offer, except for the one that failed to deliver a solution to the (still) main outstanding problem.
    I already addressed that. Stop creating straw men.

    And the Labour proposal was specifically for membership of The Customs Union because they said they wanted to have say over EU trade deals. They were either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest.

    And you are telling outright lies. Labour did not vote for every compromise on offer. The most obvious compromise was the EFTA/EEA membership and only 4 Labour MPs supported that.

    Dragging in how the Tories voted is immaterial because I have not been supporting their stance either. They ere just as bad. I was specifically calling you out for your utter drivel about Labour supporting compromise. They didn't. They only supported proposals that were either impossible or which negated the referendum result.

    It is clear from your opening paragraph that you also would rather have reversed the referendum result which is why you deserve nothing from scorn for your dishonesty.
    It feels like you're the one being dishonest though. You enumerated the Labour votes on some of the indicative votes, but dismissed the customs union one as "impossible". Now we see it wasn't "impossible" but merely undesirable in your opinion.
    No, as set out they were impossible. Membership of the Customs Union requires full EU membership. The Labour proposal particularly was clearly for membership of The Customs Union not just 'a' customs union as they argued for UK input to EU third party trade agreements.
    Labour's proposal was for *a* customs union not membership of *the* customs union.
    The only customs union that would allow the UK to have a say on EU third party trade deals (which was explict in their proposal) would be 'The' Customs Union. It was typical political dishonesty to try and dress it up any other way. Something you are repeating now.
    Or the UK and EU could have negotiated a new customs union between the UK and EU that gave the UK some say. That should have been possible given that we always hold all the cards in these negotiations.
    We never held all the cards. I deal with realities, not pipe dreams. You are more interested in defending your beloved party than in finding an actual solution to these issues.
    I have literally provided a solution: Efta plus a customs arrangement similar to Turkey's to allow for frictionless trade GB/NI/EU. This is the compromise that Labour voted for. It isn't perfect but it protects the GFA, protects trade and honours the referendum. What is your solution? And what compromise did the Tories vote for?
    Its odd how you view only getting what you want as a compromise.

    From the meaningful votes the "compromises" that significant numbers of Tories backed were No Deal, and the option nicknamed 'managed no deal'.

    In the end we got the compromise of a new deal, which Parliament was able to accept, so all's well that ends well.
    I didn't want to leave. So leaving without screwing over Ireland or our exporters seemed a good compromise to me. No deal isn't a compromise, it is a form of Brexit so severe that all Brexiteers assured us during the referendum campaign that it would never happen. And I would note that the deal we have got has placed the GFA in peril and the government that negotiated it now wants to tear it up, so if it's a compromise it's not a great one.
    No deal is a compromise just as much as your proposal is. Its saying that we wanted a deal, but we recognise that we haven't been able to reach an acceptable agreement with the EU, so we will have to compromise that we will leave without one which isn't what we wanted but respecting the EU's difference of opinion with us.

    The fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it not a compromise. I didn't like your proposal so, swings and roundabouts.
    A compromise is a solution that lies between two extremes, not one that is more extreme even than one of the starting points of the debate (since Leave always said we would of course only leave with a deal). Since Leave won narrowly by 52 to 48% a reasonable compromise would have been a soft Brexit that took us out of the EU political structures while preserving economic ties and protecting the GFA. What we have now only partially preserves ecomic ties and puts the GFA in danger. It is not a compromise.
    A compromise is a resolution that means both sides make concessions. No deal is a compromise because we thought we could get all we wanted, but we'd have compromised by accepting that we couldn't and they would have accepted they couldn't get all they wanted either, and the talks would have come to an end.

    What we have now is an agreement, it absolutely is a compromise, even if you don't like it. The whole point of Brexit though is we've taken back control now, so if you don't like it, or elements of it, then its democratic to seek to evolve or change the agreement over time.
    Agreed. My hope is that over time we repair some of the damage done to our prosperity by evolving to a closer economic relationship and eventually we rejoin so we can play our part as a leading European power. It will take time and will sadly amount to a pointless round trip absorbing much political energy that would have been more usefully employed in solving our many manifest problems.
    Really hope we will.

    With apologies to my favourite (Japanese) author -

    What I Think About When I Think About Brexit.

    I alternate between 'pointless' and 'damaging'. They are the 2 governing adjectives for me. Sometimes it's the damage I mainly think about. Other times it's the pointlessness. Occasionally I think about both at the same time.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,087

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    And why should the public want to hear the unhappy reality when there are plausible-sounding people willing to tell them that the happy unreality is definitely an option?

    The tradeoff in May's deal (the UK can have control of its borders for people, whilst keeping frictionless movement of goods, at the cost of shadowing Eurorules without anything like as much input into those rules as before) is an odd one when written down, but maybe the British public would have gone along with it. Clearly it would have sent many Brexit backers potty, but it would have had the logic of "what did most Leave voters really want?" behind it.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 926
    edited June 2022
    Stocky said:


    The IT guys despise Apple, yet folk like us who want things to be simple and what works are very pleased with the products.

    Apple are very opinionated -- they tend to not offer the user choices but instead to say "this is what we think is best, and that's how it's going to work". If as a user you don't have a strong view, or your views basically align with Apple's take on things, this is great -- things Just Work, and you aren't required to make choices about stuff you don't care about, so interfaces can be simple. If, on the other hand, there are tech choices you do have a strong opinion about and they're not Apple's choices, then using Apple kit is likely to be a series of "damnit, why can't I make this work the way I want it to?" papercuts.

    For an IT business, I suspect there may also be business elements involving how Apple work (or don't work) with third parties around spare parts and repair that might cause a business owner to decide they don't want to deal with them at all.

    Personally I appreciate that the quality of their products really is pretty good, but Apple's "we're the greatest and the smartest and the bestest and only we could have made this dazzling technologically advanced thing that is five billion times better than the competition in every way" marketing schtick drives me up a wall...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.



    Ooh, that bread looks good
    It is and you should try the squid. And the Grillo white
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
    Yes.

    The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.

    The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.

    Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.

    Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
    SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
    Democracy.

    The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
    Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
    It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
    Precisely, if we joined the bloc we'd have MEPs, so a say in the rules.

    Being aligned as proposed but without joining the bloc, we'd have been bound by new regulations like GDPR without even getting a say in them. That is undemocratic.
    Nope because as I already explained the EFTA members of the EEA take part in all levels of development of new regulation including proposals and the only thing they do not take part in is the final vote. But unlike EU members if they don't agree in a mild way then they can adjust the regulations under their own Parliamentary process - alignment rather than conformance - and if they don't agree strongly then they can opt out. The only way for an EU member to opt out, given that most of the decisions are by QMV, is to leave entirely.
    And yet Theresa May, and then Boris Johnson even more strongly, ruled all this out by ruling out free movement. Not Remainers, Labour, the Lib Dems, or anyone else.
    Oh I agree. As I said in my arguments earlier today, I am not absolving the Tories of blame for the mess they have made of this at all. But it is worth pointing out that if Labour had been sensible in the indicative votes then their backing for the EFTA/EEA option would have been enough to see it over the line. Parliament blocked that option.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    What we need is a referendum, to finish this argument once and for all

    You are arguing for a second vote...

    Traitor!!!
    It was a joke


    However, on reflection, I wonder if a referendum is the only way of solving this. It is the referendum that, perhaps, we should have had as part of a two-stage process in the first place - Remain or Leave for the first vote, then, if Leave, what kind of Leave

    Imagine if Cameron had offered this. He didn’t because he was too scared he’d get “Leave” in the first vote, if people knew they had the backstop of choosing Hard or Soft Brexit after that. What a twat he was. A monumental failure of statecraft

    Anyway, it’s time to have that referendum. Hard or Soft Brexit. Labour could do it. But to do it they’d have to face down nutters like you and say Sorry, Rejoin will not be an option

    I might actually vote for a Labour party that had the wisdom and maturity to offer this.
    No, you start with “which leave?”
    Then, you vote “chosen leave” or “remain”.

    This goes for any large scale constitutional change, like republicanism, proportional representation, and probably scottish independence too.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    DavidL said:

    I am also in the market for a new laptop and have read this thread with interest. What I am really looking for is a split screen which would allow me to see the court and also bring documents up. I have tried 2 screens but not got that to work satisfactorily when out and about.
    Can anyone give a recomendation for a good quality, reasonably fast lap top that is not too heavy but which offers this? I like a large screen and that would obviously be even more important if it was split.

    There were for a time some manufacturers that sold laptops with more than 1 screen.

    Some had a small screen next to the trackpad. There was one that had a pull out second screen behind the main screen
  • Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,763
    Andy_JS said:

    "British Virgin Islands: UK decides against direct rule of territory"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61736373

    Boris in charge of Virgin Islands. What could possibly go wrong?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
    Yes.

    The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.

    The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.

    Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.

    Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
    SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
    Democracy.

    The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
    Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
    It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
    Precisely, if we joined the bloc we'd have MEPs, so a say in the rules.

    Being aligned as proposed but without joining the bloc, we'd have been bound by new regulations like GDPR without even getting a say in them. That is undemocratic.
    Nope because as I already explained the EFTA members of the EEA take part in all levels of development of new regulation including proposals and the only thing they do not take part in is the final vote. But unlike EU members if they don't agree in a mild way then they can adjust the regulations under their own Parliamentary process - alignment rather than conformance - and if they don't agree strongly then they can opt out. The only way for an EU member to opt out, given that most of the decisions are by QMV, is to leave entirely.
    And yet Theresa May, and then Boris Johnson even more strongly, ruled all this out by ruling out free movement. Not Remainers, Labour, the Lib Dems, or anyone else.
    Oh I agree. As I said in my arguments earlier today, I am not absolving the Tories of blame for the mess they have made of this at all. But it is worth pointing out that if Labour had been sensible in the indicative votes then their backing for the EFTA/EEA option would have been enough to see it over the line. Parliament blocked that option.
    Although I understand why the/a customs union is crap, I think Labour were reasonably sensible in the indicative votes.

    The real crime was not voting for May’s deal.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,773
    IshmaelZ said:

    Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.



    I did Rajasthan and Okavango on horse. Both super hot and early starts. Lunch in India was served up wherever they had arranged to stop followed by a siesta until cooler then a long afternoon ride as it was a route from A to B etc but Okavango was a camp based seven riding days so always back to the camp around 11 for drinks and brunch then a sleep or chill until late afternoon evening ride.

    Fantastic way to see countries so I am envious.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    I am also in the market for a new laptop and have read this thread with interest. What I am really looking for is a split screen which would allow me to see the court and also bring documents up. I have tried 2 screens but not got that to work satisfactorily when out and about.
    Can anyone give a recomendation for a good quality, reasonably fast lap top that is not too heavy but which offers this? I like a large screen and that would obviously be even more important if it was split.

    There were for a time some manufacturers that sold laptops with more than 1 screen.

    Some had a small screen next to the trackpad. There was one that had a pull out second screen behind the main screen
    That would be ideal. Carrying around 2 screens plus papers is a bit of an ask.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841
    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    What we need is a referendum, to finish this argument once and for all

    You are arguing for a second vote...

    Traitor!!!
    It was a joke


    However, on reflection, I wonder if a referendum is the only way of solving this. It is the referendum that, perhaps, we should have had as part of a two-stage process in the first place - Remain or Leave for the first vote, then, if Leave, what kind of Leave

    Imagine if Cameron had offered this. He didn’t because he was too scared he’d get “Leave” in the first vote, if people knew they had the backstop of choosing Hard or Soft Brexit after that. What a twat he was. A monumental failure of statecraft

    Anyway, it’s time to have that referendum. Hard or Soft Brexit. Labour could do it. But to do it they’d have to face down nutters like you and say Sorry, Rejoin will not be an option

    I might actually vote for a Labour party that had the wisdom and maturity to offer this.
    EEA would have won 70/30, minimum. But Leave would have won by close to 60/40.
    Yeah, basically 'as close to ca '75 as you can get with no/reduced freedom of movement son. Cheers'
    That might prove to be rather too popular an option amongst the euro populace at large though.
    Be an illuminating euro wide poll anyway
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,156
    edited June 2022

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
    Yes.

    The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.

    The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.

    Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.

    Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
    SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
    Democracy.

    The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
    Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
    It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
    Precisely, if we joined the bloc we'd have MEPs, so a say in the rules.

    Being aligned as proposed but without joining the bloc, we'd have been bound by new regulations like GDPR without even getting a say in them. That is undemocratic.
    Nope because as I already explained the EFTA members of the EEA take part in all levels of development of new regulation including proposals and the only thing they do not take part in is the final vote. But unlike EU members if they don't agree in a mild way then they can adjust the regulations under their own Parliamentary process - alignment rather than conformance - and if they don't agree strongly then they can opt out. The only way for an EU member to opt out, given that most of the decisions are by QMV, is to leave entirely.
    And if say Norway wanted to "opt out" of the GDPR then what would they have to opt out from? And if a present Norway government wanted to pass something like the GDPR but a future elected government wanted to "opt out" could they rip that up, or would it be established law and the only way they could leave it would be to leave?

    Though you haven't answered my question. Since we have a trade agreement already, and since you don't want customs, what are the major benefits we would gain from replacing the TCA with EFTA or EEA?
    Well for a start the TCA doesn't cover a lot of the trade in services. No passporting, no mutual recognition of qualifications, no automatic access to EU markets for services and aviation. These are included in the EEA.

    For me also the principle of freedom of movement is very appealing. Not for me personally. As I have said before I work extensively across the EU and overseas and have no issues with some very minor extra bits of paperwork. But on principle I object to barriers to free movement.
    Passporting is included in the EEA, but not the EFTA, which is why Switzerland lacks passporting though surely?

    So what advantage would the EFTA hold over the TCA?

    Like you I agree that barriers to movement are bad, but I also oppose discrimination too. If we are allowing large scale immigration, which I approve of, that should be offered to the best and brightest of the entire planet and not just Europeans.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited June 2022

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds and financial interests, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate and insufficient ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    DavidL said:

    That would be ideal. Carrying around 2 screens plus papers is a bit of an ask.

    You can also buy a USB screen that plugs into a laptop. I have used that successfully in the past
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,926
    DavidL said:

    I am also in the market for a new laptop and have read this thread with interest. What I am really looking for is a split screen which would allow me to see the court and also bring documents up. I have tried 2 screens but not got that to work satisfactorily when out and about.
    Can anyone give a recomendation for a good quality, reasonably fast lap top that is not too heavy but which offers this? I like a large screen and that would obviously be even more important if it was split.

    You know you can get portable (second) screens? I have here an Asus MB16AC (which tbh I rarely use now that I do not go anywhere but still). It fits handily into the laptop bag. Although it is generally shown being held up by its case, in practice I just propped it up with a pen-like object through the hole in the corner.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,249

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    What we need is a referendum, to finish this argument once and for all

    You are arguing for a second vote...

    Traitor!!!
    It was a joke


    However, on reflection, I wonder if a referendum is the only way of solving this. It is the referendum that, perhaps, we should have had as part of a two-stage process in the first place - Remain or Leave for the first vote, then, if Leave, what kind of Leave

    Imagine if Cameron had offered this. He didn’t because he was too scared he’d get “Leave” in the first vote, if people knew they had the backstop of choosing Hard or Soft Brexit after that. What a twat he was. A monumental failure of statecraft

    Anyway, it’s time to have that referendum. Hard or Soft Brexit. Labour could do it. But to do it they’d have to face down nutters like you and say Sorry, Rejoin will not be an option

    I might actually vote for a Labour party that had the wisdom and maturity to offer this.
    No, you start with “which leave?”
    Then, you vote “chosen leave” or “remain”.

    This goes for any large scale constitutional change, like republicanism, proportional representation, and probably scottish independence too.
    That just wouldn’t work, emotionally. I’m not even sure it makes sense intellectually

    You take the big decision first - divorce or not divorce - then you make the secondary decision: am I going to lawyer my ex until she’s bleeding from the eyes? Or do I compromise and let her keep half the house if I get all the wine and the kids?

    And anyway, we are where we are. We’ve taken the big decision. We’re out. So now we finesse it with a 2nd vote. This would also give Labour (I am presuming it is Labour that do this) plenty of cover to do things - like rejoin the SM - which they would not have the bollocks to do, otherwise
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    DavidL said:

    That would be ideal. Carrying around 2 screens plus papers is a bit of an ask.

    You can also use an iPad as an extension screen for a mac I think in the new versions of code
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    I am also in the market for a new laptop and have read this thread with interest. What I am really looking for is a split screen which would allow me to see the court and also bring documents up. I have tried 2 screens but not got that to work satisfactorily when out and about.
    Can anyone give a recomendation for a good quality, reasonably fast lap top that is not too heavy but which offers this? I like a large screen and that would obviously be even more important if it was split.

    There were for a time some manufacturers that sold laptops with more than 1 screen.

    Some had a small screen next to the trackpad. There was one that had a pull out second screen behind the main screen
    That would be ideal. Carrying around 2 screens plus papers is a bit of an ask.
    There are some interesting designs here - not sure if any of these would be of use?
  • Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,249
    edited June 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.



    Ooh, that bread looks good
    It is and you should try the squid. And the Grillo white

    That’s a near-perfect lunch scenario. A lovely horse ride in the morning sun. Work up an appetite. Then sit down to cold white, squid in oil and lemon, and crunchy bread. Need more wine tho

    I guess you’re going a riding holiday? Do they take you right across northern Sicily?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    edited June 2022
    … doh
  • Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    NEW One MP close to Jeremy Hunt has just left the 1922 committee having listened to Rishi Sunak address Tory backbenchers. "The grown-up is in the room. What a contrast," he told me. Ouch. #Toryleadership
    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1534575695187390464
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461
    edited June 2022
    Although I'm ashamed to link to the Daily Mail, I note that a) there's no discernible impact of the "we'll send you to Rwanda" policy thus far, and b) Patel's leadership qualities show no sign of improving.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10897075/Priti-Patels-Rwanda-policy-having-NO-impact-migrants.html
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    They have beer also


  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited June 2022

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry, but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited June 2022
    DavidL said:

    I am also in the market for a new laptop and have read this thread with interest. What I am really looking for is a split screen which would allow me to see the court and also bring documents up. I have tried 2 screens but not got that to work satisfactorily when out and about.
    Can anyone give a recomendation for a good quality, reasonably fast lap top that is not too heavy but which offers this? I like a large screen and that would obviously be even more important if it was split.

    Your options boil down to a separate 15" screen you can connect using a usb cable (https://www.laptopsdirect.co.uk/ct/tvs-projectors-and-monitors/monitors/portable has some) or using your iPad with something like https://www.duetdisplay.com/

    Edit - I note @Scott_xP has posted both options below but without links.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited June 2022
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    What we need is a referendum, to finish this argument once and for all

    You are arguing for a second vote...

    Traitor!!!
    It was a joke


    However, on reflection, I wonder if a referendum is the only way of solving this. It is the referendum that, perhaps, we should have had as part of a two-stage process in the first place - Remain or Leave for the first vote, then, if Leave, what kind of Leave

    Imagine if Cameron had offered this. He didn’t because he was too scared he’d get “Leave” in the first vote, if people knew they had the backstop of choosing Hard or Soft Brexit after that. What a twat he was. A monumental failure of statecraft

    Anyway, it’s time to have that referendum. Hard or Soft Brexit. Labour could do it. But to do it they’d have to face down nutters like you and say Sorry, Rejoin will not be an option

    I might actually vote for a Labour party that had the wisdom and maturity to offer this.
    No, you start with “which leave?”
    Then, you vote “chosen leave” or “remain”.

    This goes for any large scale constitutional change, like republicanism, proportional representation, and probably scottish independence too.
    That just wouldn’t work, emotionally. I’m not even sure it makes sense intellectually

    You take the big decision first - divorce or not divorce - then you make the secondary decision: am I going to lawyer my ex until she’s bleeding from the eyes? Or do I compromise and let her keep half the house if I get all the wine and the kids?

    And anyway, we are where we are. We’ve taken the big decision. We’re out. So now we finesse it with a 2nd vote. This would also give Labour (I am presuming it is Labour that do this) plenty of cover to do things - like rejoin the SM - which they would not have the bollocks to do, otherwise
    Well you say it doesn’t work, but it’s how NZ moved to PR, and also how they didn’t change the flag. It’s also how Australia rejected republicanism.

    Yes it’s too late.

    Your idea of a vote now to provide political cover for Keir is a good one.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,249

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    This simply is not true. And, actually, this is one area where I understand Remoaner rage

    There were probably four leading Leavers. Boris first, then Farage, then Gove, then Hannan

    Of those both Boris and Hannan said We will stay in the Single Market, Quite emphatically. I bet Gove mumbled something similar.

    “No one is threatening out position in the Single Market!” - Daniel Hannan, just before the referendum. He also meant it. And probably Boris did, too. They wanted to stay in the SM. It was May’s red lines that forced us out
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    The drape a garland of flowers over the turd option.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    A public demonstration of sweetness and light in the Tory ranks would do their electoral prospects no end of good.

  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Mr. Pete, one does wonder what was going through Labour's collective head on that.

    Did they think if May got ousted the Conservatives would do anything but move in a more sceptical direction?

    May's deal was the most pro-EU one they were going to get.

    They thought they could overturn the result of the referendum
    They were hoping the Tories would come to their senses and support a softer Brexit of the kind now being advocated by noted Remoaner Daniel Hannan. Unfortunately the Tories whipped their MPs to vote those options down, replaced May with psychopathic liar Boris Johnson, and came up with a plan even dafter than May's, which they are now trying to unpick.
    But yes, clearly all of this is the fault of the Labour Party.
    Dan Hannan always advocated the sort of soft Brexit I wanted. He has not changed his view on that.

    But yes it is amusing and a little sad that it was the actions of the irreconciled Remain fanatics that allowed the narrative, and the type of Brexit, to be driven by the hard Brexiteers.

    Were they primarily or even largely responsible for where we are now? No.

    Did they help contribute to it and could they have helped to prevent it if they had not been so hell bent on reversing the referendum? Undoubtedly yes.

    The type of Brexit we ended up with was born of hardliners on both sides. They both made sure there could be no compromise.
    The Labour Party voted for compromise, the Tories whipped their MPs to oppose it. Those are the facts.
    No the Labour Party did not vote for compromise.

    Looking at the breakdowns for the indicative proposals see if you can spot which one the Labour MPs preferred

    Proposal H - EFTA and EEA only 4 Labour MPs supported it. If they all had it would have passed.
    Proposal L - Revoke article 50 - 111 Labour MPs supported it.
    Proposal M - Rerun the referendum - 198 Labour MPs supported it.

    Of the other 5 proposals 2 were effectively No Deal and 3 demanded we stayed in the Customs Union which was impossible without us remaining as full members of the EU.

    So much for Labour supporting compromise.
    This is such a dishonest post, sorry. I cannot let it stand without correcting the record.

    The purpose of negotiating a customs union with the EU was to protect free trade the Irish border. You will note that Johnson's deal only achieved this goal by erecting trade barriers in the Irish Sea, which he is now trying to dismantle. In other words, a worthy goal that the government has failed to properly deliver.

    For the first round of indicative votes:

    Almost all Labour MPs voted for Ken Clarke's amendment K to negotiate a customs union as part of any deal. It was defeated by the Tories voting overwhelmingly against, with only a handful of Tories supporting it.

    Almost all Labour MPs voted for Nick Boles's Common Market 2.0, ammendment D, which proposed EEA/Efta membership and a comprehensive customs arrangement. It was defeated by the Tories. Only a handful of Tory MPs supported it.

    Almost all Labour MPs voted for the Labour Party's own compromise calling for close economic alignment with the EU, ammendment K. Voted down by the Tories.

    The revocation amendment was supported by a minority of Labour MPs and some Tory MPs but in any case was only in case of no deal to avoid a catastrophic economic impact.

    The confirmatory public vote wasn't a rerun of the referendum - it simply said the public should have a say on any Brexit deal that was negotiated. A reasonable way of breaking the parliamentary deadlock.

    George Eustice's EEA/Efta deal (amendment H) received little support from any party as without anything to say on a customs union it had no solution to the Irish border. Only 65 MPs voted for it.

    Yes, Labour voted for compromise. The Tories voted against.
    Wrong. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance.

    The Customs Union proposals were complete non starters. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. There are strange little exceptions for some of the tiny principalities like Monaco but they were never on offer to the UK.

    Nick Boles, Ken Clarkes and the Labour proposals all included Customs Union Membership. The Labour proposal was explicitly The Customs Union since it included the UK having a say in EU third party trade deals. Even though this was impossible.

    These proposals were just as dishonest as you are now being in trying to misrepresent them.

    Your party voted for chaos because they refused to accept the referendum result and that is exactly what they got.

    Wrong. You can be in a customs union with the EU without being in the EU, like Turkey. Is this perfect? No. That's why we shouldn't have left.
    Not all the proposals called explicitly for a customs union, they were calling for a customs arrangement of some kind to deal with the Irish border question. Otherwise, how is that problem solved? Not by the current deal, which the government is currently tearing up. What solution do you have?
    What compromise did Tory MPs vote for? None. Labour MPs voted for every compromise on offer, except for the one that failed to deliver a solution to the (still) main outstanding problem.
    I already addressed that. Stop creating straw men.

    And the Labour proposal was specifically for membership of The Customs Union because they said they wanted to have say over EU trade deals. They were either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest.

    And you are telling outright lies. Labour did not vote for every compromise on offer. The most obvious compromise was the EFTA/EEA membership and only 4 Labour MPs supported that.

    Dragging in how the Tories voted is immaterial because I have not been supporting their stance either. They ere just as bad. I was specifically calling you out for your utter drivel about Labour supporting compromise. They didn't. They only supported proposals that were either impossible or which negated the referendum result.

    It is clear from your opening paragraph that you also would rather have reversed the referendum result which is why you deserve nothing from scorn for your dishonesty.
    It feels like you're the one being dishonest though. You enumerated the Labour votes on some of the indicative votes, but dismissed the customs union one as "impossible". Now we see it wasn't "impossible" but merely undesirable in your opinion.
    No, as set out they were impossible. Membership of the Customs Union requires full EU membership. The Labour proposal particularly was clearly for membership of The Customs Union not just 'a' customs union as they argued for UK input to EU third party trade agreements.
    Are we even talking about the same thing? The Customs Union proposal came from Ken Clarke, and called for "a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU".

    That was the missed opportunity in this whole thing, the compromise that would have seen us leave the EU without even half the angst of the last few years. I won't forgive those who voted against it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    I don't think it is cognitive bias to think AB is building an extraordinarily high profile as definitely the one to watch of the 2019:intake

    As per, this is spot on as being both right, and shrewd; looks and is constructive, doesn't detract from his basic Johnson must go position
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,926
    geoffw said:

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    A public demonstration of sweetness and light in the Tory ranks would do their electoral prospects no end of good.

    Along with Boris remembering that he is supposed to be contrite and not say he'd do it all again.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Hahahahahahaha oh my God
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,763

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds and financial interests, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate and insufficient ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    You make it sound all mysterious and conspiratorial with “various hedge funds and financial interests”.

    It wasn’t. It was simply the Business for Britain think tank (which comprised SMEs and some city individuals who know the chairman personally) was the only existing infrastructure available to stand up Vote Leave extremely quickly
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    Leon said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    This simply is not true. And, actually, this is one area where I understand Remoaner rage

    There were probably four leading Leavers. Boris first, then Farage, then Gove, then Hannan

    Of those both Boris and Hannan said We will stay in the Single Market, Quite emphatically. I bet Gove mumbled something similar.

    “No one is threatening out position in the Single Market!” - Daniel Hannan, just before the referendum. He also meant it. And probably Boris did, too. They wanted to stay in the SM. It was May’s red lines that forced us out
    You can also blame the dynamics of the campaign for that. The Remain side thought that saying a vote for Leave definitely meant leaving the single market would benefit them, but Vote Leave called their bluff by running with it.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,743

    geoffw said:

    A public demonstration of sweetness and light in the Tory ranks would do their electoral prospects no end of good.

    Along with Boris remembering that he is supposed to be contrite and not say he'd do it all again.
    I doubt the electorate will be as forgiving as the Conservatives hope but I suppose putting the entire Cabinet in the stocks and pelting them with rotten fruit for an hour might be highly cathartic.

    As for Boris Johnson being contrite, all I ever hear from him are apologies - I'm bored with his constant apologising especially as you sense he's going through the motions.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited June 2022
    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    However, in several statements Hannan suggested even more clearly the deal was not just the perfect manouevre, but perfect in practice. Look here :

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1199800/election-news-2019-Brexit-news-Boris-Johnson-no-deal-Daniel-Hannan-Conservative-MEP

    "The deal gives us total freedom".

    What does this mean ? Presumably that this is Brexit Max, Brexit perfected, something like the Immaculate Brexit.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    The Brexit frothers voted against EVERYTHING in order to bring down the government and take power.
    And you want to talk about obstructionism? Hahaha you poor deluded sap.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited June 2022
    Andy_JS said:

    "British Virgin Islands: UK decides against direct rule of territory"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61736373

    I had a piece of land in the BVI. However bad their governance it can hardly be worse than what the UK have got to offer
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,396
    Some time ago, I purchased three bumper stickers and will soon offer one to Tim Cook, the Apple CEO. They are quite colorful, and say "Free Tibet". The offer will be conditional; he has to promise to display it prominently.

    As I understand it, nearly all Apple products are made by the ChiComs, so accepting it might cause him a few problems with his bosses in Beijing.

    (In general I prefer to buy products made in friendly democracies, or at least in friendly nations. I don't know how common that attitude is, here or elsewhere.

    That sometimes takes a little research. In the US, Amazon does not give the sources of its imports, though our laws require imports to be labeled with their nation of origin.)
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,743

    <

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.

    Interesting that Aaron Bell, who would be thrown out on an 8.4% swing, is frantically hoping the Conservatives will discover party discipline and hope against hope the public will start to like them again.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Farooq said:

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    The Brexit frothers voted against EVERYTHING in order to bring down the government and take power.
    And you want to talk about obstructionism? Hahaha you poor deluded sap.
    Not true, as explained at length this afternoon: if Labour had supported EFTA/EEA in the indicative votes, it would have passed.
  • Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry, but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    For one thing, are you actually trying to take the Daily Express seriously?

    Secondly I am not Hannan, but I would say because from where we were in 2019 with May's backstop the only option on the table and the EU saying they wouldn't renegotiate, ending up with a trade agreement minus the backstop was a tremendous achievement and allows people to go forward now and democratically debate next steps freely, which is the only way to do it properly. First we need to leave, now people can campaign for whatever they want, that is democracy in action.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,926
    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    I don't think it is cognitive bias to think AB is building an extraordinarily high profile as definitely the one to watch of the 2019:intake

    As per, this is spot on as being both right, and shrewd; looks and is constructive, doesn't detract from his basic Johnson must go position
    @Tissue_Price could be PB's first ever Prime Minister. Or actually second, since David Cameron was rumoured to lurk here.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    edited June 2022

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    Even if that is his wish I hardly think pushing immediately for one would help achieve it. Some number at least will feel having lost the vote they need to give him a little more rope to hang himself at least.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,249

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    However, in several statements Hannan suggested even more clearly the deal was not just the perfect manouevre, but perfect in practice. Look here :

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1199800/election-news-2019-Brexit-news-Boris-Johnson-no-deal-Daniel-Hannan-Conservative-MEP

    "The deal gives us total freedom".

    What does that mean ? Presumably that this is Brexit Max, Brexit perfected, or something like the Immaculate Brexit.
    I am not unacquainted with Lord Hannan, as the actress said to the Remoaner

    By that stage, psychologically, Leavers were - quite understandably - extremely worried that the Leave vote would be cancelled altogether and British democracy would be crushed and ruined. Because of fucking idiot Remoaners. Who heedlessly pushed ahead with a policy - ignoring 17 million votes - which might have hurled the country into civil strife. Unbelievably irresponsible

    So yeah he probably told a few fibs to avoid blood on the streets. Can’t blame him. Brexit had to be delivered and those who campaigned to cancel it should slink away and never speak again in public

    But now it is delivered and it is fairly crap, like some poor malformed baby where the midwife was arguing with the obstetrician as to who should use the forceps, so they eventually used an ice cream scoop. Therefore, we need to fix it
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Roger said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "British Virgin Islands: UK decides against direct rule of territory"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61736373

    I had a piece of land in the BVI. However bad their governance it can hardly be worse than what the UK have got to offer
    Beneath the Ngong hills
  • Farooq said:

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    The Brexit frothers voted against EVERYTHING in order to bring down the government and take power.
    And you want to talk about obstructionism? Hahaha you poor deluded sap.
    The Brexit frothers didn't vote against EVERYTHING they voted for No Deal and Managed No Deal on the indicative votes. That is something, even if you don't like it.

    No deal is better than a bad deal, so those were the right options for a Brexiteer to vote for at the time.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225
    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    I don't think it is cognitive bias to think AB is building an extraordinarily high profile as definitely the one to watch of the 2019:intake

    As per, this is spot on as being both right, and shrewd; looks and is constructive, doesn't detract from his basic Johnson must go position
    Aaron's problem will be to hold his seat at the next election. Sad but true.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,763

    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    I don't think it is cognitive bias to think AB is building an extraordinarily high profile as definitely the one to watch of the 2019:intake

    As per, this is spot on as being both right, and shrewd; looks and is constructive, doesn't detract from his basic Johnson must go position
    @Tissue_Price could be PB's first ever Prime Minister. Or actually second, since David Cameron was rumoured to lurk here.
    Only when he wasn’t playing Angry Birds…
  • Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    However, in several statements Hannan suggested even more clearly the deal was not just the perfect manouevre, but perfect in practice. Look here :

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1199800/election-news-2019-Brexit-news-Boris-Johnson-no-deal-Daniel-Hannan-Conservative-MEP

    "The deal gives us total freedom".

    What does this mean ? Presumably that this is Brexit Max, Brexit perfected, something like the Immaculate Brexit.
    No, there's no such thing as Brexit perfected, as perfect isn't a real world thing.

    It gives us total freedom to decide what to do. Actually deciding what to do with that freedom is the next part of the process, different people will have different ideas of what to do with freedoms, even though they agreed on the need for freedom. That is actually fairly typical and crucial in a free democracy.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    The drape a garland of flowers over the turd option.
    It's Christmas Day, 1914. Stuck in the half-frozen mud, cold and tired, the troops eye each other warily. An uneasy quiet breaks out. The guns fall silent. Slowly, tentatively, a group of soldiers make their way into no-man's-land. One of them is carrying a football and the others hold cigarettes.

    From the opposing trenches, a portly captain with a shock of unkempt blond hair looks from the the men carrying the football to his own troops, and back again.

    Moments later, the men in the middle fall in a hail of machine gun fire. The ball, unpierced, bounces a little and then comes to rest in black pool of blood.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092

    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    I don't think it is cognitive bias to think AB is building an extraordinarily high profile as definitely the one to watch of the 2019:intake

    As per, this is spot on as being both right, and shrewd; looks and is constructive, doesn't detract from his basic Johnson must go position
    Aaron's problem will be to hold his seat at the next election. Sad but true.
    If he fails at least he knows the price of tissues.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400

    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    I don't think it is cognitive bias to think AB is building an extraordinarily high profile as definitely the one to watch of the 2019:intake

    As per, this is spot on as being both right, and shrewd; looks and is constructive, doesn't detract from his basic Johnson must go position
    Aaron's problem will be to hold his seat at the next election. Sad but true.
    Yes - Labour figures in the Red Wall seats that were lost were not aided by taking a more conciliatory Brexit stance, and if seats are turning against Boris being a rebel won't necessarily help a great deal.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,399

    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    I don't think it is cognitive bias to think AB is building an extraordinarily high profile as definitely the one to watch of the 2019:intake

    As per, this is spot on as being both right, and shrewd; looks and is constructive, doesn't detract from his basic Johnson must go position
    @Tissue_Price could be PB's first ever Prime Minister. Or actually second, since David Cameron was rumoured to lurk here.
    Snowflake had her chance and fluffed it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,147
    IshmaelZ said:

    Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.



    Is that octopus, perchance?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited June 2022

    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    I don't think it is cognitive bias to think AB is building an extraordinarily high profile as definitely the one to watch of the 2019:intake

    As per, this is spot on as being both right, and shrewd; looks and is constructive, doesn't detract from his basic Johnson must go position
    @Tissue_Price could be PB's first ever Prime Minister. Or actually second, since David Cameron was rumoured to lurk here.
    It was no rumour, and he actually understands betting odds.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited June 2022
    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    However, in several statements Hannan suggested even more clearly the deal was not just the perfect manouevre, but perfect in practice. Look here :

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1199800/election-news-2019-Brexit-news-Boris-Johnson-no-deal-Daniel-Hannan-Conservative-MEP

    "The deal gives us total freedom".

    What does that mean ? Presumably that this is Brexit Max, Brexit perfected, or something like the Immaculate Brexit.
    I am not unacquainted with Lord Hannan, as the actress said to the Remoaner

    By that stage, psychologically, Leavers were - quite understandably - extremely worried that the Leave vote would be cancelled altogether and British democracy would be crushed and ruined. Because of fucking idiot Remoaners. Who heedlessly pushed ahead with a policy - ignoring 17 million votes - which might have hurled the country into civil strife. Unbelievably irresponsible

    So yeah he probably told a few fibs to avoid blood on the streets. Can’t blame him. Brexit had to be delivered and those who campaigned to cancel it should slink away and never speak again in public

    But now it is delivered and it is fairly crap, like some poor malformed baby where the midwife was arguing with the obstetrician as to who should use the forceps, so they eventually used an ice cream scoop. Therefore, we need to fix it
    Most of this is fantasy casting out blame in entirely the wrong directions , but we've been through this toxic conflict many hundreds of times before on PB, as has much of the whole internet.

    The more important fact is that there seems to be a emerging consensus that the current deal is no good. But who is going to be the prominent politician brave enough to tell Leavers that ?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    The Brexit frothers voted against EVERYTHING in order to bring down the government and take power.
    And you want to talk about obstructionism? Hahaha you poor deluded sap.
    The Brexit frothers didn't vote against EVERYTHING they voted for No Deal and Managed No Deal on the indicative votes. That is something, even if you don't like it.

    No deal is better than a bad deal, so those were the right options for a Brexiteer to vote for at the time.
    No deal is better than a bad deal no deal is better than a bad deal oh fuck off you sack of wet shit
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092

    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    I don't think it is cognitive bias to think AB is building an extraordinarily high profile as definitely the one to watch of the 2019:intake

    As per, this is spot on as being both right, and shrewd; looks and is constructive, doesn't detract from his basic Johnson must go position
    @Tissue_Price could be PB's first ever Prime Minister. Or actually second, since David Cameron was rumoured to lurk here.
    Snowflake had her chance and fluffed it.
    She melted when things warmed up.

  • Off topic. I just provided IT support via remotepc to a laptop for a colleague. I'm at home in foul cloud and heavy rain. Mentioned the weather to the colleague who responded that he had decided to WFH this week, but base himself in a villa in the south of France. And politicians really think we will go back to working in offices?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,147
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    The Brexit frothers voted against EVERYTHING in order to bring down the government and take power.
    And you want to talk about obstructionism? Hahaha you poor deluded sap.
    The Brexit frothers didn't vote against EVERYTHING they voted for No Deal and Managed No Deal on the indicative votes. That is something, even if you don't like it.

    No deal is better than a bad deal, so those were the right options for a Brexiteer to vote for at the time.
    No deal is better than a bad deal no deal is better than a bad deal oh fuck off you sack of wet shit
    Apart from anything else, it's like "you can't see the wood for the trees" - hopelessly ambiguous.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    I don't think it is cognitive bias to think AB is building an extraordinarily high profile as definitely the one to watch of the 2019:intake

    As per, this is spot on as being both right, and shrewd; looks and is constructive, doesn't detract from his basic Johnson must go position
    Aaron's problem will be to hold his seat at the next election. Sad but true.
    I would suggest a PB minibus to NuL to canvass for him but might be net counterproductive. CF Randolph Churchill's mates when he stood in Portsmouth or somewhere knocking on slum doors and saying How much longer do you want to be paying super tax at nineteen and six in the pound
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841
    Do you think that [X] party is currently united or divided?

    Conservatives
    United - 9%
    Divided - 80%

    Labour
    United - 35%
    Divided - 36%

    https://t.co/oS1hwiwnVv

    https://t.co/8AF4Ryiag8 https://t.co/h1Kedry4Q8

    1% think the conservatives are 'very united'. Its a view......
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,249
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.



    Is that octopus, perchance?
    @IshmaelZ says squid but I confess it looks very much like octopus, to me
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,396
    There is, of course, an alternative to both Macs and Windows. For years, Dell has sold high-end Linux desktops and laptops. And there are other hardware companies that do the same. I don't recommend them to everyone, or even most, though I have run dual-boot systems for years, but I do think they are the best solution for a significant minority.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.



    Is that octopus, perchance?
    @IshmaelZ says squid but I confess it looks very much like octopus, to me
    Sorry, correct. Polpi.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Do you think that [X] party is currently united or divided?

    Conservatives
    United - 9%
    Divided - 80%

    Labour
    United - 35%
    Divided - 36%

    https://t.co/oS1hwiwnVv

    https://t.co/8AF4Ryiag8 https://t.co/h1Kedry4Q8

    1% think the conservatives are 'very united'. Its a view......

    Let's have a referendum to unite the party
    let's throw out the Gaukward squad to unite the party
    let's have another election to unite the party

    The sooner they eff off into opposition, the better. All of them. Bell, Boris, Mogg, the whole circus.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    edited June 2022
    pm215 said:

    Stocky said:


    The IT guys despise Apple, yet folk like us who want things to be simple and what works are very pleased with the products.

    Apple are very opinionated -- they tend to not offer the user choices but instead to say "this is what we think is best, and that's how it's going to work". If as a user you don't have a strong view, or your views basically align with Apple's take on things, this is great -- things Just Work, and you aren't required to make choices about stuff you don't care about, so interfaces can be simple. If, on the other hand, there are tech choices you do have a strong opinion about and they're not Apple's choices, then using Apple kit is likely to be a series of "damnit, why can't I make this work the way I want it to?" papercuts.

    For an IT business, I suspect there may also be business elements involving how Apple work (or don't work) with third parties around spare parts and repair that might cause a business owner to decide they don't want to deal with them at all.

    Personally I appreciate that the quality of their products really is pretty good, but Apple's "we're the greatest and the smartest and the bestest and only we could have made this dazzling technologically advanced thing that is five billion times better than the competition in every way" marketing schtick drives me up a wall...
    ITguys tend to be pretty opinionated, too. :smile:
    At least the rest of us can more or less understand Apple.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,147
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.



    Is that octopus, perchance?
    @IshmaelZ says squid but I confess it looks very much like octopus, to me
    Ah, thanks, so he did. The tentacles are very chunky but maybe there are squid of different sizes - there's one bit that I wondered about, which looks like the opening of the mantle cavity of a smaller squid. The bit that looks like the unfortunate bits of kangaroos which certain politicals are made to eat live on TV as ritual humiliation.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841

    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    We’ve also spoken to @AaronBell4NUL who says Johnson needs to bring the party back together by putting some of those who didn’t support PM back into the tent & into cabinet (the likes of Hunt/Hinds/Clark/Julian Smith). Watch what both men have to say on @skynews at 6pm
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1534574754803376146

    Interesting that Aaron Bell is talking about moving on and Johnson bringing the party back together, not pushing for a second vote as a few people have suggested.
    I don't think it is cognitive bias to think AB is building an extraordinarily high profile as definitely the one to watch of the 2019:intake

    As per, this is spot on as being both right, and shrewd; looks and is constructive, doesn't detract from his basic Johnson must go position
    Aaron's problem will be to hold his seat at the next election. Sad but true.
    I'm fairly confident on Aaron holding his seat.

    The locals in Newcastle-under-Lyme were bloody impressive on all metrics.
    16% margin and good locals results. Easy hold.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    However, in several statements Hannan suggested even more clearly the deal was not just the perfect manouevre, but perfect in practice. Look here :

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1199800/election-news-2019-Brexit-news-Boris-Johnson-no-deal-Daniel-Hannan-Conservative-MEP

    "The deal gives us total freedom".

    What does this mean ? Presumably that this is Brexit Max, Brexit perfected, something like the Immaculate Brexit.
    No, there's no such thing as Brexit perfected, as perfect isn't a real world thing.

    It gives us total freedom to decide what to do. Actually deciding what to do with that freedom is the next part of the process, different people will have different ideas of what to do with freedoms, even though they agreed on the need for freedom. That is actually fairly typical and crucial in a free democracy.
    Is this the heady phase we're in now then? Deciding what to do with our total freedoms? This maybe explains why we all feel a bit dizzy. That first blast of sunlight after decades of captivity.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.



    Is that octopus, perchance?
    @IshmaelZ says squid but I confess it looks very much like octopus, to me
    Ah, thanks, so he did. The tentacles are very chunky but maybe there are squid of different sizes - there's one bit that I wondered about, which looks like the opening of the mantle cavity of a smaller squid. The bit that looks like the unfortunate bits of kangaroos which certain politicals are made to eat live on TV as ritual humiliation.
    No, I have retracted and apologize for inadvertently misleading the house
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,926

    Off topic. I just provided IT support via remotepc to a laptop for a colleague. I'm at home in foul cloud and heavy rain. Mentioned the weather to the colleague who responded that he had decided to WFH this week, but base himself in a villa in the south of France. And politicians really think we will go back to working in offices?

    At some point, firms (and the government) will need to get a grip on WFH. If your colleague is to base himself in the south of France, he will need to know that chocolatine is French for pain au chocolate but under whose employment law does he fall and to which exchequer should he pay income tax?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Farooq said:

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    The Brexit frothers voted against EVERYTHING in order to bring down the government and take power.
    And you want to talk about obstructionism? Hahaha you poor deluded sap.
    The Brexit frothers didn't vote against EVERYTHING they voted for No Deal and Managed No Deal on the indicative votes. That is something, even if you don't like it.

    No deal is better than a bad deal, so those were the right options for a Brexiteer to vote for at the time.
    And May's deal, while imperfect, was far better than either of those things.

    As I recall, your most repeated argument against it was that it trapped us in the arrangement forever.
    When I pointed out that we could simply abrogate the treaty, if we were trapped for years in something that proved unacceptable, you argued that to do so would be unthinkable.
    How's that working out ?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,147
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.



    Is that octopus, perchance?
    @IshmaelZ says squid but I confess it looks very much like octopus, to me
    Ah, thanks, so he did. The tentacles are very chunky but maybe there are squid of different sizes - there's one bit that I wondered about, which looks like the opening of the mantle cavity of a smaller squid. The bit that looks like the unfortunate bits of kangaroos which certain politicals are made to eat live on TV as ritual humiliation.
    No, I have retracted and apologize for inadvertently misleading the house
    Looks very tasty anyway ...
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    edited June 2022

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    However, in several statements Hannan suggested even more clearly the deal was not just the perfect manouevre, but perfect in practice. Look here :

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1199800/election-news-2019-Brexit-news-Boris-Johnson-no-deal-Daniel-Hannan-Conservative-MEP

    "The deal gives us total freedom".

    What does that mean ? Presumably that this is Brexit Max, Brexit perfected, or something like the Immaculate Brexit.
    I am not unacquainted with Lord Hannan, as the actress said to the Remoaner

    By that stage, psychologically, Leavers were - quite understandably - extremely worried that the Leave vote would be cancelled altogether and British democracy would be crushed and ruined. Because of fucking idiot Remoaners. Who heedlessly pushed ahead with a policy - ignoring 17 million votes - which might have hurled the country into civil strife. Unbelievably irresponsible

    So yeah he probably told a few fibs to avoid blood on the streets. Can’t blame him. Brexit had to be delivered and those who campaigned to cancel it should slink away and never speak again in public

    But now it is delivered and it is fairly crap, like some poor malformed baby where the midwife was arguing with the obstetrician as to who should use the forceps, so they eventually used an ice cream scoop. Therefore, we need to fix it
    Most of this is fantasy casting out blame in entirely the wrong directions , but we've been through this toxic conflict many times before PB, as has much of the whole internet.

    The more important fact is that there seems to be a emergent consensus that the current deal is no good. But who is going to be the prominent politician brave enough to tell Leavers that ?
    Boris? He could do a Nixon and China and say, 'Brexit is a balls up, but only I am qualified to fix it, for only the man who delivered Brexit can be trusted not to be reversing it.' The sheer audacity would be difficult to argue with. His opponents on all sides would be stunned.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    This is why weaponising woke won't be effective for the Tories, it has no meaning and why antiwokeism makes the majority laugh.

    In what possible world is wearing a cycle helmet ‘woke’?

    And yet further proof that ‘woke’ has lost all (once, potentially quite useful) meaning [via letters page in @thetimes]




    https://twitter.com/hwallop/status/1534579992172060672
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    kinabalu said:

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    However, in several statements Hannan suggested even more clearly the deal was not just the perfect manouevre, but perfect in practice. Look here :

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1199800/election-news-2019-Brexit-news-Boris-Johnson-no-deal-Daniel-Hannan-Conservative-MEP

    "The deal gives us total freedom".

    What does this mean ? Presumably that this is Brexit Max, Brexit perfected, something like the Immaculate Brexit.
    No, there's no such thing as Brexit perfected, as perfect isn't a real world thing.

    It gives us total freedom to decide what to do. Actually deciding what to do with that freedom is the next part of the process, different people will have different ideas of what to do with freedoms, even though they agreed on the need for freedom. That is actually fairly typical and crucial in a free democracy.
    Is this the heady phase we're in now then? Deciding what to do with our total freedoms? This maybe explains why we all feel a bit dizzy. That first blast of sunlight after decades of captivity.
    The bullshit is dizzying. Johnson and his Cabinet are a marriage made in heaven with his Brexiteers.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    The Brexit frothers voted against EVERYTHING in order to bring down the government and take power.
    And you want to talk about obstructionism? Hahaha you poor deluded sap.
    The Brexit frothers didn't vote against EVERYTHING they voted for No Deal and Managed No Deal on the indicative votes. That is something, even if you don't like it.

    No deal is better than a bad deal, so those were the right options for a Brexiteer to vote for at the time.
    No deal is better than a bad deal no deal is better than a bad deal oh fuck off you sack of wet shit
    By definition “no deal” is not a “deal”, so the fact that Brexit frothers continued to vote for “no deal” also means that they failed to vote for a “deal”.

    So it’s true, in everyday language, that the frothers voted against anything meaningful.

    Am I the only person who finds BartyBobbin’s logic incredibly twisted and wrong-headed? Not just on Brexit, but on pretty much everything.

    It is not worth trying to parse him, because underneath it all are quite mad propositions like taxing public transport, as he was advocating this morning.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    However, in several statements Hannan suggested even more clearly the deal was not just the perfect manouevre, but perfect in practice. Look here :

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1199800/election-news-2019-Brexit-news-Boris-Johnson-no-deal-Daniel-Hannan-Conservative-MEP

    "The deal gives us total freedom".

    What does that mean ? Presumably that this is Brexit Max, Brexit perfected, or something like the Immaculate Brexit.
    I am not unacquainted with Lord Hannan, as the actress said to the Remoaner

    By that stage, psychologically, Leavers were - quite understandably - extremely worried that the Leave vote would be cancelled altogether and British democracy would be crushed and ruined. Because of fucking idiot Remoaners. Who heedlessly pushed ahead with a policy - ignoring 17 million votes - which might have hurled the country into civil strife. Unbelievably irresponsible

    So yeah he probably told a few fibs to avoid blood on the streets. Can’t blame him. Brexit had to be delivered and those who campaigned to cancel it should slink away and never speak again in public

    But now it is delivered and it is fairly crap, like some poor malformed baby where the midwife was arguing with the obstetrician as to who should use the forceps, so they eventually used an ice cream scoop. Therefore, we need to fix it
    Most of this is fantasy casting out blame in entirely the wrong directions , but we've been through this toxic conflict many times before PB, as has much of the whole internet.

    The more important fact is that there seems to be a emergent consensus that the current deal is no good. But who is going to be the prominent politician brave enough to tell Leavers that ?
    Boris? He could do a Nixon and China and say, 'Brexit is a balls up, but only I am qualified to fix it, for only the man who delivered Brexit can be trusted not to be reversing it.' The sheer audacity would be difficult to argue with. His opponents on all sides would be stunned.
    A cunning stunt indeed.

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,242
    . . . meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .

    CA 2022 Primary - San Francisco District Attorney Recall Election
    > on recalling SFDA Chesa Boudin; he was elected in 2019 as advocate of progressive policing reform

    with estimated 62% of ballots counted as of Tues night:

    Recall Yes 74,335 59.98%
    Recall No 49,591 40.02%
    Valid votes 123,926 96.75%
    Invalid or blank votes 4,161 3.25%
    Total votes 128,087 100.00%
    Registered voters/turnout 495,498 25.85%

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_San_Francisco_District_Attorney_recall_election

    Pungent pundit point - San Francisco is the only county in the Golden State that is also a city. Following pattern set by New York City (when it was just Manhattan = New York Co) and Philadelphia City & County in Pennsylvania. Ditto City of New Orleans = Orleans Parish in Louisiana.

    Note that Baltimore City and Baltimore County in Maryland are two separate jurisdictions, ditto St Louis City and St Louis County in Missouri.

    Few other examples and near-examples which I will leave to other eager-beaver geo-politico PBers, assuming there are any!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Nigelb said:

    Farooq said:

    Applicant said:

    Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.

    Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.

    The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.

    This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.

    What trade-offs were lied about. The situation now with Boris's agreement is pretty much exactly what Vote Leave promised.

    They said we would get a leave the single market (done), leave the customs union (done), trade agreement (we have one), take back control of our laws (done), money (done), borders (done) and waters (done). That we would be able to diverge our laws (done) and sign trade deals (done).

    You may not like those priorities, but it is what was proposed, and what has been done.
    I would suggest asking Daniel Hannan, then. The key mover, along with various hedge funds, in setting up Vote Leave in the very first place, appears to believe the current situation is both perfect and "brilliant" (2019) and inadequate ( now ). Just absurd nonsense.
    Daniel Hannan, like Mr Tyndall, always wanted an EEA style solution. He settled for the Vote Leave prospectus because it was the one on offer and better than Remaining, but it was always a stepping stone for him.

    Which is right and democratic, now we're out we can debate what changes we want to make democratically, something we couldn't do if we Remained.

    But you've not named any trade offs that were lied about.
    If he wanted an EEA solution, how could Johnson's ridiculous deal be "an extraordinary feat", as he described it to the Daily Express in 2019 ?

    I'm sorry but there's no other words to describe this all but comical, absurd, farcical - except tragi-farcical.

    It was an extraordinary feat to get any deal agreed in the face of outright anti-democratic obstructionism of the estaplishment, from the Speaker of the House of Commons down.
    The Brexit frothers voted against EVERYTHING in order to bring down the government and take power.
    And you want to talk about obstructionism? Hahaha you poor deluded sap.
    The Brexit frothers didn't vote against EVERYTHING they voted for No Deal and Managed No Deal on the indicative votes. That is something, even if you don't like it.

    No deal is better than a bad deal, so those were the right options for a Brexiteer to vote for at the time.
    And May's deal, while imperfect, was far better than either of those things.

    As I recall, your most repeated argument against it was that it trapped us in the arrangement forever.
    When I pointed out that we could simply abrogate the treaty, if we were trapped for years in something that proved unacceptable, you argued that to do so would be unthinkable.
    How's that working out ?
    May’s deal did have an exit, it just wasn’t “unilateral”. In operation, it frankly was very little different from how Article 16 works…
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,773
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.



    Is that octopus, perchance?
    @IshmaelZ says squid but I confess it looks very much like octopus, to me
    Ah, thanks, so he did. The tentacles are very chunky but maybe there are squid of different sizes - there's one bit that I wondered about, which looks like the opening of the mantle cavity of a smaller squid. The bit that looks like the unfortunate bits of kangaroos which certain politicals are made to eat live on TV as ritual humiliation.
    No, I have retracted and apologize for inadvertently misleading the house
    Misleading the house about Octopuses should result in you up before the beak. Treating people like suckers.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    edited June 2022
    Nothing dodgy about this, I'm sure these reviews are really cavalier about findings of gross failures of governance so severe they'd recommend suspending constitutions. Better to let then come together and bash on I guess.

    The UK has decided not to impose direct rule on the British Virgin Islands, despite a report finding gross failures of governance in the territory.

    The review said the BVI's constitution should be suspended and its government dissolved amid corruption concerns.

    But the foreign secretary will instead allow a new administration to implement reforms in the next two years...

    Led by British judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom, the report described the state of governance in the BVI as "appallingly bad".

    He found that millions of dollars of state funds were spent each year by politicians and ministries without proper process, there was "serious dishonesty" relating to sales of public property, and there was widespread abuse of appointments


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61736373
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,249

    This is why weaponising woke won't be effective for the Tories, it has no meaning and why antiwokeism makes the majority laugh.

    In what possible world is wearing a cycle helmet ‘woke’?

    And yet further proof that ‘woke’ has lost all (once, potentially quite useful) meaning [via letters page in @thetimes]




    https://twitter.com/hwallop/status/1534579992172060672

    Who the fuck writes letters to newspapers, these days, apart from elderly lunatics?

    There was always a high proportion of nutters - green ink, etc - but, really, what kind of person sits down and thinks: Right, I shall pen an angry letter to the editor, this will show them, and I shall put it on the next mailcoach, for publication forthwith! I might even seal it with wax!

    Woke is fucking hideous. It is going to get worse and it will damage the Left, with increasing severity. Boris is right to focus on it. Tho I doubt it can save him
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841

    This is why weaponising woke won't be effective for the Tories, it has no meaning and why antiwokeism makes the majority laugh.

    In what possible world is wearing a cycle helmet ‘woke’?

    And yet further proof that ‘woke’ has lost all (once, potentially quite useful) meaning [via letters page in @thetimes]




    https://twitter.com/hwallop/status/1534579992172060672

    Nah, it will. They are after the Old Man shouts at cloud voters.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,147
    Leon said:

    This is why weaponising woke won't be effective for the Tories, it has no meaning and why antiwokeism makes the majority laugh.

    In what possible world is wearing a cycle helmet ‘woke’?

    And yet further proof that ‘woke’ has lost all (once, potentially quite useful) meaning [via letters page in @thetimes]




    https://twitter.com/hwallop/status/1534579992172060672

    Who the fuck writes letters to newspapers, these days, apart from elderly lunatics?

    There was always a high proportion of nutters - green ink, etc - but, really, what kind of person sits down and thinks: Right, I shall pen an angry letter to the editor, this will show them, and I shall put it on the next mailcoach, for publication forthwith! I might even seal it with wax!

    Woke is fucking hideous. It is going to get worse and it will damage the Left, with increasing severity. Boris is right to focus on it. Tho I doubt it can save him
    This letter might have been emailed, for all we know ...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    @Telegraph
    Cow and sheep burps are to be taxed by New Zealand in a world-first draft plan to put a price on agricultural emissions


    https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1534584695291248641
This discussion has been closed.