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.
No. The lad's got a brain on him when he chooses to use it, but by Christ when he falls back in sloganeering it drives the devil into me. I don't mind so much when the thickos mindlessly trot out vacuous slogans but not when they're clearly more capable. It's like watching Pukki play for a team like Norwich. It's just like... you're better than this.
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
Bolivia has permissive universities -- with "dinosaurs". For example: "San Andres university rector Oscar Heredia says it is not just student leaders but also ordinary students who remain at university for many years.
Of the university's more than 81,000 students, 23 percent have been there more than 11 years and 6.7 percent more than 20 years.
One thousand have even been there more than 30 years and around 100 more than 40 years.
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
Who were you before 'Farook?' I have a feeling you're one of the lefty Scottish posters who are generally my favourites
It has meaning, some even push back occasionally and like to use it positively in its original context, but it is severely overused (particularly in america) as a synonym for 'bad', at which point it is indeed meaningless.
I think the Tories can gain a little from seeming on the side of those against absurdist examples of what in the past might have been labelled PC culture - some of it is utterly preposterous - but it is not enough to win a campaign around. It's spice to add to a meal, not the meal itself. And much better to point out silly stuff than overdo it and bang on about it all the time - the public will laugh at the silly stuff without that.
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?
I am living the life of the digital nomad right now. I am sitting on a lovely little tumbledown wooden terrace in Old Town Tbilisi. The stars shine over Freedom Square (previously, marvellously, Beria Square - I kid you not). It is a soft sweet evening and it is 22C and really great wine is £7 a bottle - and I mean GREAT. Good wine can be had for £2
You can live a fabulous life here (certainly in the kinder months of May-October) for zip. If you’re going to work from home why not work from a version of paradise?
An exPBer, @SeanT wrote prophetically on this theme. He is much missed
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
Sir, Everything hurts or smells foreign or isn't like it was. Yours, Ethel Stabbington-Cuppatee
Bolivia has permissive universities -- with "dinosaurs". For example: "San Andres university rector Oscar Heredia says it is not just student leaders but also ordinary students who remain at university for many years.
Of the university's more than 81,000 students, 23 percent have been there more than 11 years and 6.7 percent more than 20 years.
One thousand have even been there more than 30 years and around 100 more than 40 years.
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
Woke is taking it too far, talking about it too much and wallowing in it to the exclusion of everything else.
It's fine to be kind and inclusive to hitherto marginalised minorities. And right. But not to set up an intersectional grievance hierarchy and then judge and treat everyone by respect to where they sit in it.
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
Who were you before 'Farook?' I have a feeling you're one of the lefty Scottish posters who are generally my favourites
He never posted, but previously browsed a lot as “CallMeDave2010”.
Only started posting in earnest after 2016 when I presume job or other life circs allowed much more free time.
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 a red herring (given the size, complexity and proximity of the City) while MiFID and MiFID allow for reverse solicitation and don’t ban the use of markets outside the Union. The moves on clearing are less helpful, but will be at least as disruptive and damaging to the EU as to us, so what’s really needed is a sensible recognition of equivalence.
I can even hear the vocal inflections of Victor Meldrew in this letter. It's political correctness gone *MAD*, I tell you !
I sympathise with Mr Heathcote of Bogmoor’s views, but for balance I would like to hear from Colonel Gussington Ret. (Mrs) of Goblin Parva, who sadly did not survive the cycling accident she had in 1992 due to severe brain trauma.
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
Woke is taking it too far, talking about it too much and wallowing in it to the exclusion of everything else.
It's fine to be kind and inclusive to hitherto marginalised minorities. And right. But not to set up an intersectional grievance hierarchy and then judge and treat everyone by respect to where they sit in it.
I am pretty sure “ intersectional grievance hierarchy” were an experimental art house band from the 1990s.
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
Who the fuck bangs on about "woke" on PB, these days, apart from elderly lunatics? (the use of "these days" is normally an indicator of advancing age!)
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?
I presumed that our remainer fans would be more taken by the horse.
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 :
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.
In one way this is the sort of provocatively shameless thing he could do, nudge-and-wink style ; on the other hand it would require some genuine political bravery, alongside the gleeful acts of provocation, which I'm not sure he's ever shown.
In the unlikely event of him trolling, provoking and wrong-footing his own side, my opinion of him would definitely rise, but admittedly from a very low starting-point.
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
Woke is taking it too far, talking about it too much and wallowing in it to the exclusion of everything else.
It's fine to be kind and inclusive to hitherto marginalised minorities. And right. But not to set up an intersectional grievance hierarchy and then judge and treat everyone by respect to where they sit in it.
Woke led to the rapes of maybe 100,000 white British girls by Muslim grooming gangs
100,000. Possibly a lot more
Why? Because the intersectional suffering of British Muslims (brown, marginalised, immigrant, poor) was deemed more important, and worthy of protection than “slutty white British girls from difficult backgrounds” who did not count in the hierarchy, and who had no one to protect them, Whereas these rapists had an entire industry of lawyers and diversity officers and the rest pushing their cause, and thereby cowing councillors and police into silence
That’s what Woke does. If your intersectional oppression is deemed more important, tens of thousands of kids get raped
I can almost hear the vocal inflections of Victor Meldrew here. It's political correctness gone *MAD*, I tell you !
Yes, that's it. The ghastly term "woke" has been broadened to such an extent that it means the same as that other ghastly term "politically correct" - though the ancient letter-writer goes further by ascribing it an overly protective safety culture. It is possible, probable, that there is a large overlap between those who are politically correct and those who subscribe to safety culture, but they are different things.
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
Woke is taking it too far, talking about it too much and wallowing in it to the exclusion of everything else.
It's fine to be kind and inclusive to hitherto marginalised minorities. And right. But not to set up an intersectional grievance hierarchy and then judge and treat everyone by respect to where they sit in it.
Woke led to the rapes of maybe 100,000 white British girls by Muslim grooming gangs
100,000. Possibly a lot more
Why? Because the intersectional suffering of British Muslims (brown, marginalised, immigrant, poor) was deemed more important, and worthy of protection than “slutty white British girls from difficult backgrounds” who did not count in the hierarchy, and who had no one to protect them, Whereas these rapists had an entire industry of lawyers and diversity officers and the rest pushing their cause, and thereby cowing councillors and police into silence
That’s what Woke does. If your intersectional oppression is deemed more important, tens of thousands of kids get raped
When your life of lonely introversion that must be a requirement of the solitary traveller/travel journo gets tiresome, you might want to apply for a job with The Express, though you might want to tone done a little of the divisive hyperbole - they might consider it a little much even for their readership.
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 might turn out to be me, I’m confident of going all the way when I get round to starting. Am planning to redecorate the spare room first though.
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 ?
Pretty much as I said. The histrionics that a Parliament has shown about small breaks with things to do with Northern Ireland show that its utterly improbable the Commons and Lords would allow us to unilaterally abrogate the entire Treaty throwing us into an immediate No Deal scenario.
If the only way out of a situation is to break the law, then the situation is not acceptable.
Comments
"San Andres university rector Oscar Heredia says it is not just student leaders but also ordinary students who remain at university for many years.
Of the university's more than 81,000 students, 23 percent have been there more than 11 years and 6.7 percent more than 20 years.
One thousand have even been there more than 30 years and around 100 more than 40 years.
"It's something that worries us, but it's a broad issue," Heredia told AFP."
As it should.
source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/university-tragedy-brings-to-light-dinosaur-student-issue/ar-AAY7nFQ?bk=1&ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1f57fd7c42624e4f91b2a88cab6725c0
I think the Tories can gain a little from seeming on the side of those against absurdist examples of what in the past might have been labelled PC culture - some of it is utterly preposterous - but it is not enough to win a campaign around. It's spice to add to a meal, not the meal itself. And much better to point out silly stuff than overdo it and bang on about it all the time - the public will laugh at the silly stuff without that.
I am living the life of the digital nomad right now. I am sitting on a lovely little tumbledown wooden terrace in Old Town Tbilisi. The stars shine over Freedom Square (previously, marvellously, Beria Square - I kid you not). It is a soft sweet evening and it is 22C and really great wine is £7 a bottle - and I mean GREAT. Good wine can be had for £2
You can live a fabulous life here (certainly in the kinder months of May-October) for zip. If you’re going to work from home why not work from a version of paradise?
An exPBer, @SeanT wrote prophetically on this theme. He is much missed
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-work-from-home-when-you-can-work-from-paradise
Everything hurts or smells foreign or isn't like it was.
Yours,
Ethel Stabbington-Cuppatee
It's fine to be kind and inclusive to hitherto marginalised minorities. And right. But not to set up an intersectional grievance hierarchy and then judge and treat everyone by respect to where they sit in it.
Only started posting in earnest after 2016 when I presume job or other life circs allowed much more free time.
In the unlikely event of him trolling, provoking and wrong-footing his own side, my opinion of him would definitely rise, but admittedly from a very low starting-point.
100,000. Possibly a lot more
Why? Because the intersectional suffering of British Muslims (brown, marginalised, immigrant, poor) was deemed more important, and worthy of protection than “slutty white British girls from difficult backgrounds” who did not count in the hierarchy, and who had no one to protect them, Whereas these rapists had an entire industry of lawyers and diversity officers and the rest pushing their cause, and thereby cowing councillors and police into silence
That’s what Woke does. If your intersectional oppression is deemed more important, tens of thousands of kids get raped
If the only way out of a situation is to break the law, then the situation is not acceptable.