I agree with him entirely in that bit. There will be people seeking to undermine or prevent Brexit through underhand means because they cannot democratically manage it, but those pursuing the democratic path to Brexit are not helped by people not feeling able to express concern or offer their thoughts, even critical ones. I am sure all reasonable people would agree, and so even if they think Major a deluded has been about the worthiness of Brexit or what needs to happen now, we can overcome his points rather than think he and those like him should shut up.
Yesterday I spent some time asking Leavers to contemplate why Remainers weren't changing their minds. Responses divided between:
1) But we keep telling you that you're wrong, what more can we do? 2) We don't care what Remainers think, we've won our referendum and that's that. 3) Remainers have the temerity not to change their minds and it's their fault.
The brittle way in which Leavers respond to every concern expressed makes it most unlikely that the country will pull together behind Brexit. If Britain remains divided, Brexit will almost inevitably fail. Yet Leavers show no interest in addressing this.
Most odd.
Your own, as you have admitted deliberately provocative, attitude may not have encouraged a thoughtful response in fairness, but I think it is fair to say too many respond too negatively and hostilely to any expressed concern.
Some remainers are clearly, I would argue, not interested in being reached out to, which hardly helps heal division, but the greater burden would need to fall on we the victors I think.
Delete "greater" and replace with "sole". If you want to make this work, you'd better start thinking fast how. So far not a single major Leaver figure has made any meaningful attempt to bring Remainers into the fold.
There are other groups. One of the largest, one in which I would place myself is:
Those who are appalled at the result of the referendum, who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU, who see the whole Brexit project heading for the rocks, with no real prospect of avoiding very real pain. All that can be done is to prepare the first aid kit for the inevitable breaking of bones that is coming. From the sounds of it, Sir John is in exactly this category.
Let us call this either the Meeks's or the Bevvie's
Actually, the Major Meeks's has an alliterative swing to it
When Mrs C asked Mr. Isam about circumcision I don't think she was asking for volunteers...
Whilst male circumcision is not as life destroying as FGM, I cannot think of any reason to inflict it on a healthy baby boy and sometimes it goes horribly wrong.
Basically cutting bits off your kids for purely cultural reasons should be outlawed.
Agree entirely. A worrying symptom born of the insane idea that children can be considered adherents of a religion "a Muslim child" "a Jewish child" "A Christian child" etc.
If children wish to be religious, let them choose to become so at age 18.
Is this new tactic from the refuseniks, of predicting criticism of someone making a pro EU statement, a kind of defence so as to stop it, lest the would be critics lose a point for proving them right?
Surely no one would be so petty!
The promptness of the PB remainer roll call when Major, Blair, Mandelson etc say something is quite amusing.
It's almost worth betting on who will be first to pop up and say something about leaver frothers.
I agree with him entirely in that bit. There will be people seeking to undermine or prevent Brexit through underhand means because they cannot democratically manage it, but those pursuing the democratic path to Brexit are not helped by people not feeling able to express concern or offer their thoughts, even critical ones. I am sure all reasonable people would agree, and so even if they think Major a deluded has been about the worthiness of Brexit or what needs to happen now, we can overcome his points rather than think he and those like him should shut up.
Yesterday I spent some time asking Leavers to contemplate why Remainers weren't changing their minds. Responses divided between:
1) But we keep telling you that you're wrong, what more can we do? 2) We don't care what Remainers think, we've won our referendum and that's that. 3) Remainers have the temerity not to change their minds and it's their fault.
The brittle way in which Leavers respond to every concern expressed makes it most unlikely that the country will pull together behind Brexit. If Britain remains divided, Brexit will almost inevitably fail. Yet Leavers show no interest in addressing this.
Most odd.
Your own, as you have admitted deliberately provocative, attitude may not have encouraged a thoughtful response in fairness, but I think it is fair to say too many respond too negatively and hostilely to any expressed concern.
Some remainers are clearly, I would argue, not interested in being reached out to, which hardly helps heal division, but the greater burden would need to fall on we the victors I think.
Have to say I have seen precious little evidence of reaching out (and it's the Government, rather than PB that I have in mind here).
I agree, and I think the government needs to do a lot more of it. Obviously nothing short of reversal of Brexit will be enough for some people, but the government could make more of an effort than it is for the rest.
1. Those who want to remain in the EU, are appalled at the result of the referendum and would like to see the decision reversed in some way. Their most articulate spokesman so far is one T Blair.
2. Those who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU but are concerned that the consequences and the trade-offs needed are poorly understood and/or communicated by the government and that it is altogether too Panglossian in its approach to how Brexit will be implemented.
Criticisms from the group in 2 are worth listening to because they may help the government make better decisions.
Maybe we should have a competition to name these groups. Just to make it easier in PB threads.
Group 1 could be called The Millers (after Ms Gina Miller). The Blairites has been taken.
What should Group 2 be called?
Sensible?
No no: it's got to be a name like "Mabel" not a thinly disguised compliment.
Think Canterbury Tales: The Pardoners or The Knights.
I agree with him entirely in that bit. There will be people seeking to undermine or prevent Brexit through underhand means because they cannot democratically manage it, but those pursuing the democratic path to Brexit are not helped by people not feeling able to express concern or offer their thoughts, even critical ones. I am sure all reasonable people would agree, and so even if they think Major a deluded has been about the worthiness of Brexit or what needs to happen now, we can overcome his points rather than think he and those like him should shut up.
Yesterday I spent some time asking Leavers to contemplate why Remainers weren't changing their minds. Responses divided between:
1) But we keep telling you that you're wrong, what more can we do? 2) We don't care what Remainers think, we've won our referendum and that's that. 3) Remainers have the temerity not to change their minds and it's their fault.
The brittle way in which Leavers respond to every concern expressed makes it most unlikely that the country will pull together behind Brexit. If Britain remains divided, Brexit will almost inevitably fail. Yet Leavers show no interest in addressing this.
Most odd.
It isn't really that odd... I cant really see anyone on here who voted leave and is demanding the leavers invention, "hard Brexit". It is a strawman/dummy invented by the cry babies.
I have said many times, I am happy with the softest of soft brexits. That is ignored because it doesn't give the refuseniks something to wail about.
Compared to the deranged clot we have in the White House currently, Dubya looks like a serious statesman.
Funny, I thought much the same about Brown and Major. It came as a shock to me as someone who was decidedly unimpressed by Major when he had the job ....
History will judge Sir John Major more kindly than his own time. I was never a fan of his, but nevertheless one has to respect his upturning of political gravity by winning in 1992, then stoically holding for half a decade in the face of vehement attacks from the europhobic right of his own party.
From 2017, he looks like a class act. Astounding ...
In hindsight, Mr T Blair still looks mostly sweaty and shifty. Maybe another 10 years are needed?
I agree with him entirely in that bit. There will be people seeking to undermine or prevent Brexit through underhand means because they cannot democratically manage it, but those pursuing the democratic path to Brexit are not helped by people not feeling able to express concern or offer their thoughts, even critical ones. I am sure all reasonable people would agree, and so even if they think Major a deluded has been about the worthiness of Brexit or what needs to happen now, we can overcome his points rather than think he and those like him should shut up.
Yesterday I spent some time asking Leavers to contemplate why Remainers weren't changing their minds. Responses divided between:
1) But we keep telling you that you're wrong, what more can we do? 2) We don't care what Remainers think, we've won our referendum and that's that. 3) Remainers have the temerity not to change their minds and it's their fault.
The brittle way in which Leavers respond to every concern expressed makes it most unlikely that the country will pull together behind Brexit. If Britain remains divided, Brexit will almost inevitably fail. Yet Leavers show no interest in addressing this.
Most odd.
Your own, as you have admitted deliberately provocative, attitude may not have encouraged a thoughtful response in fairness, but I think it is fair to say too many respond too negatively and hostilely to any expressed concern.
Some remainers are clearly, I would argue, not interested in being reached out to, which hardly helps heal division, but the greater burden would need to fall on we the victors I think.
Have to say I have seen precious little evidence of reaching out (and it's the Government, rather than PB that I have in mind here).
I agree, and I think the government needs to do a lot more of it. Obviously nothing short of reversal of Brexit will be enough for some people, but the government could make more of an effort than it is for the rest.
I'm not sure what they could do to appease them really.
1. Those who want to remain in the EU, are appalled at the result of the referendum and would like to see the decision reversed in some way. Their most articulate spokesman so far is one T Blair.
2. Those who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU but are concerned that the consequences and the trade-offs needed are poorly understood and/or communicated by the government and that it is altogether too Panglossian in its approach to how Brexit will be implemented.
Criticisms from the group in 2 are worth listening to because they may help the government make better decisions.
Maybe we should have a competition to name these groups. Just to make it easier in PB threads.
Group 1 could be called The Millers (after Ms Gina Miller). The Blairites has been taken.
What should Group 2 be called?
Sensible?
No no: it's got to be a name like "Mabel" not a thinly disguised compliment.
Think Canterbury Tales: The Pardoners or The Knights.
Something like that.
My group can be the Franklins, in reference to the "grisly feendly rokkes blake" that play such a large part in the Franklin's Tale. Also to "Trouthe is the hyeste thyng that man may kepe", which is the moral of the tale and the principle under which Franklins respect the referendum result while being appalled by it.
When Mrs C asked Mr. Isam about circumcision I don't think she was asking for volunteers...
Whilst male circumcision is not as life destroying as FGM, I cannot think of any reason to inflict it on a healthy baby boy and sometimes it goes horribly wrong.
Basically cutting bits off your kids for purely cultural reasons should be outlawed.
Agree entirely. A worrying symptom born of the insane idea that children can be considered adherents of a religion "a Muslim child" "a Jewish child" "A Christian child" etc.
If children wish to be religious, let them choose to become so at age 18.
Totally agree. I’m constantly amazed that there have been no prosecutions for FGM. And totally agree about using Health Visitors to check.
Rubbish: when I was a child at school we automatically had health inspections by the school nurse which would have picked up FGM. A health check to detect whether a crime - a brutal crime - has been committed is not a violation.
The idea we shouldn't prosecute crimes because it might upset the perpetrators is utterly bizarre. And frankly gross: read up if you can on what is actually involved in cutting a girl, the pain involved at the time and the continuing pain for the rest of their lives, the pain involved in not being able to lose menstrual blood, for instance, and developing a cyst which has to be removed surgically and imagine that happening to young girls when they are tiny and throughout their teenage years and thereafter and never being able to enjoy sex.
It is an appalling crime. I don't give a fig for religious or cultural sensibilities. Let's call a spade a spade. It's barbaric and it should not be happening to British girls. Nor do I give two hoots about how close bloody knit the families are. Girls are being horribly maimed. Crimes are being committed. The answer is not some public information film, though that may be a part. A few prosecutions and children made wards of court pour encourager les autres would send a clear message about what can and cannot happen in our society.
+1,000,000
FGM is barbaric.
It is a shameful stain on this country that FGM is tolerated. And it is tolerated by absence of prosecution. It goes back to what I said earlier about identity politics and the sickness of political correctness. It's not just the Left now who are enslaved by these perversions, it is increasingly the Tories as well. It has to be a mental illness, or some kind of mass, self-induced delusion.
Here's what the victims of FGM should do - sue the government through criminal neglegence. Even if it doesn't work, it might just shame them into taking action.
I agree with him entirely in that bit. There will be people seeking to undermine or prevent Brexit through underhand means because they cannot democratically manage it, but those pursuing the democratic path to Brexit are not helped by people not feeling able to express concern or offer their thoughts, even critical ones. I am sure all reasonable people would agree, and so even if they think Major a deluded has been about the worthiness of Brexit or what needs to happen now, we can overcome his points rather than think he and those like him should shut up.
Yesterday I spent some time asking Leavers to contemplate why Remainers weren't changing their minds. Responses divided between:
1) But we keep telling you that you're wrong, what more can we do? 2) We don't care what Remainers think, we've won our referendum and that's that. 3) Remainers have the temerity not to change their minds and it's their fault.
The brittle way in which Leavers respond to every concern expressed makes it most unlikely that the country will pull together behind Brexit. If Britain remains divided, Brexit will almost inevitably fail. Yet Leavers show no interest in addressing this.
Most odd.
Your own, as you have admitted deliberately provocative, attitude may not have encouraged a thoughtful response in fairness, but I think it is fair to say too many respond too negatively and hostilely to any expressed concern.
Some remainers are clearly, I would argue, not interested in being reached out to, which hardly helps heal division, but the greater burden would need to fall on we the victors I think.
Have to say I have seen precious little evidence of reaching out (and it's the Government, rather than PB that I have in mind here).
I agree, and I think the government needs to do a lot more of it. Obviously nothing short of reversal of Brexit will be enough for some people, but the government could make more of an effort than it is for the rest.
I'm not sure what they could do to appease them really.
I suspect we will see what they can try after A50 is formally issued - at present the government seems too petrified of the more strident leavers to acknowledge any concern or make any sort of peace offering to those who could be reassured of at least mitigation of their worst fears.
1. Those who want to remain in the EU, are appalled at the result of the referendum and would like to see the decision reversed in some way. Their most articulate spokesman so far is one T Blair.
2. Those who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU but are concerned that the consequences and the trade-offs needed are poorly understood and/or communicated by the government and that it is altogether too Panglossian in its approach to how Brexit will be implemented.
Criticisms from the group in 2 are worth listening to because they may help the government make better decisions.
Maybe we should have a competition to name these groups. Just to make it easier in PB threads.
Group 1 could be called The Millers (after Ms Gina Miller). The Blairites has been taken.
What should Group 2 be called?
There are other groups. One of the largest, one in which I would place myself is:
Those who are appalled at the result of the referendum, who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU, who see the whole Brexit project heading for the rocks, with no real prospect of avoiding very real pain. All that can be done is to prepare the first aid kit for the inevitable breaking of bones that is coming. From the sounds of it, Sir John is in exactly this category.
Modus operandi
Good news: "We haven't left yet" Bad news: "I told you so"
The EStablishment flailing is quite a sight to behold presently.
The Ex-stablishment.
It must be utterly gut-wrenching for people who have advocated for an organisation for most of their political lives to suddenly see the public say, "no thanks, we have given it a chance and think it's a failure".
Agree entirely. A worrying symptom born of the insane idea that children can be considered adherents of a religion "a Muslim child" "a Jewish child" "A Christian child" etc.
If children wish to be religious, let them choose to become so at age 18.
1. Those who want to remain in the EU, are appalled at the result of the referendum and would like to see the decision reversed in some way. Their most articulate spokesman so far is one T Blair.
2. Those who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU but are concerned that the consequences and the trade-offs needed are poorly understood and/or communicated by the government and that it is altogether too Panglossian in its approach to how Brexit will be implemented.
Criticisms from the group in 2 are worth listening to because they may help the government make better decisions.
Maybe we should have a competition to name these groups. Just to make it easier in PB threads.
Group 1 could be called The Millers (after Ms Gina Miller). The Blairites has been taken.
What should Group 2 be called?
There are other groups. One of the largest, one in which I would place myself is:
Those who are appalled at the result of the referendum, who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU, who see the whole Brexit project heading for the rocks, with no real prospect of avoiding very real pain. All that can be done is to prepare the first aid kit for the inevitable breaking of bones that is coming. From the sounds of it, Sir John is in exactly this category.
I rather thought group 2 included this category. But if you want to have another category, go ahead. All I was trying to do was distinguish between those who were making criticisms because they wanted to reverse the decision and those who were doing so because they wanted to ensure that future decisions are less bad than they might otherwise be. (How appalled or otherwise at the result they were was irrelevant to my categorization.)
I agree with him entirely in that bit. There will be people seeking to undermine or prevent Brexit through underhand means because they cannot democratically manage it, but those pursuing the democratic path to Brexit are not helped by people not feeling able to express concern or offer their thoughts, even critical ones. I am sure all reasonable people would agree, and so even if they think Major a deluded has been about the worthiness of Brexit or what needs to happen now, we can overcome his points rather than think he and those like him should shut up.
Yesterday I spent some time asking Leavers to contemplate why Remainers weren't changing their minds. Responses divided between:
1) But we keep telling you that you're wrong, what more can we do? 2) We don't care what Remainers think, we've won our referendum and that's that. 3) Remainers have the temerity not to change their minds and it's their fault.
The brittle way in which Leavers respond to every concern expressed makes it most unlikely that the country will pull together behind Brexit. If Britain remains divided, Brexit will almost inevitably fail. Yet Leavers show no interest in addressing this.
Most odd.
Your own, as you have admitted deliberately provocative, attitude may not have encouraged a thoughtful response in fairness, but I think it is fair to say too many respond too negatively and hostilely to any expressed concern.
Some remainers are clearly, I would argue, not interested in being reached out to, which hardly helps heal division, but the greater burden would need to fall on we the victors I think.
Delete "greater" and replace with "sole". If you want to make this work, you'd better start thinking fast how. So far not a single major Leaver figure has made any meaningful attempt to bring Remainers into the fold.
In case you missed it both the PM and the Chancellor are former Remainers. Moreover the rank hypocrisy of some Remainers is stunning. You spend all your time telling us what a disaster it will be and how Leavers have to take full responsibility for the disasters you claim are coming and then in the next breath moan you are not being brought into the fold.
The EStablishment flailing is quite a sight to behold presently.
The Ex-stablishment.
It must be utterly gut-wrenching for people who have advocated for an organisation for most of their political lives to suddenly see the public say, "no thanks, we have given it a chance and think it's a failure".
How and in what ways is Theresa May and her increasingly socially conservative government not the Establishment?
@Peston: Major tells me he wishes Theresa May well in her Brexit talks and has no intention to backseat drive, as Thatcher did with him
@RobDotHutton: Major, asked if he's undermining May like Thatcher did him: "I would have been very happy for Margaret to have made 1 speech every 8 months"
1. Those who want to remain in the EU, are appalled at the result of the referendum and would like to see the decision reversed in some way. Their most articulate spokesman so far is one T Blair.
2. Those who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU but are concerned that the consequences and the trade-offs needed are poorly understood and/or communicated by the government and that it is altogether too Panglossian in its approach to how Brexit will be implemented.
Criticisms from the group in 2 are worth listening to because they may help the government make better decisions.
Maybe we should have a competition to name these groups. Just to make it easier in PB threads.
Group 1 could be called The Millers (after Ms Gina Miller). The Blairites has been taken.
What should Group 2 be called?
There are other groups. One of the largest, one in which I would place myself is:
Those who are appalled at the result of the referendum, who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU, who see the whole Brexit project heading for the rocks, with no real prospect of avoiding very real pain. All that can be done is to prepare the first aid kit for the inevitable breaking of bones that is coming. From the sounds of it, Sir John is in exactly this category.
I rather thought group 2 included this category. But if you want to have another category, go ahead. All I was trying to do was distinguish between those who were making criticisms because they wanted to reverse the decision and those who were doing so because they wanted to ensure that future decisions are less bad than they might otherwise be. (How appalled or otherwise at the result they were was irrelevant to my categorization.)
I think the third group is so appalled that they don't want to do anything to help ensure future decisions are less bad.
When Mrs C asked Mr. Isam about circumcision I don't think she was asking for volunteers...
Whilst male circumcision is not as life destroying as FGM, I cannot think of any reason to inflict it on a healthy baby boy and sometimes it goes horribly wrong.
Basically cutting bits off your kids for purely cultural reasons should be outlawed.
Of course adult male circumcision may sometimes be medically necessary. FGM is never medically necessary.
When Mrs C asked Mr. Isam about circumcision I don't think she was asking for volunteers...
Whilst male circumcision is not as life destroying as FGM, I cannot think of any reason to inflict it on a healthy baby boy and sometimes it goes horribly wrong.
Basically cutting bits off your kids for purely cultural reasons should be outlawed.
Strangely it is still very prevalent in USA 77% in 2010, although that is down.
I agree with him entirely in that bit. There will be people seeking to undermine or prevent Brexit through underhand means because they cannot democratically manage it, but those pursuing the democratic path to Brexit are not helped by people not feeling able to express concern or offer their thoughts, even critical ones. I am sure all reasonable people would agree, and so even if they think Major a deluded has been about the worthiness of Brexit or what needs to happen now, we can overcome his points rather than think he and those like him should shut up.
Yesterday I spent some time asking Leavers to contemplate why Remainers weren't changing their minds. Responses divided between:
1) But we keep telling you that you're wrong, what more can we do? 2) We don't care what Remainers think, we've won our referendum and that's that. 3) Remainers have the temerity not to change their minds and it's their fault.
The brittle way in which Leavers respond to every concern expressed makes it most unlikely that the country will pull together behind Brexit. If Britain remains divided, Brexit will almost inevitably fail. Yet Leavers show no interest in addressing this.
Most odd.
Your own, as you have admitted deliberately provocative, attitude may not have encouraged a thoughtful response in fairness, but I think it is fair to say too many respond too negatively and hostilely to any expressed concern.
Some remainers are clearly, I would argue, not interested in being reached out to, which hardly helps heal division, but the greater burden would need to fall on we the victors I think.
Delete "greater" and replace with "sole". If you want to make this work, you'd better start thinking fast how. So far not a single major Leaver figure has made any meaningful attempt to bring Remainers into the fold.
In case you missed it both the PM and the Chancellor are former Remainers.
You'll need a bloody big Cabinet if that's the only way you can get Remainers on side.
The EStablishment flailing is quite a sight to behold presently.
The Ex-stablishment.
It must be utterly gut-wrenching for people who have advocated for an organisation for most of their political lives to suddenly see the public say, "no thanks, we have given it a chance and think it's a failure".
How and in what ways is Theresa May and her increasingly socially conservative government not the Establishment?
Where was that said?
It's fair to characterise Blair, Major etc as the Ex-stablishment though.
People who once mattered. People who shaped the European Britain the people rejected last June.
1. Those who want to remain in the EU, are appalled at the result of the referendum and would like to see the decision reversed in some way. Their most articulate spokesman so far is one T Blair.
2. Those who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU but are concerned that the consequences and the trade-offs needed are poorly understood and/or communicated by the government and that it is altogether too Panglossian in its approach to how Brexit will be implemented.
Criticisms from the group in 2 are worth listening to because they may help the government make better decisions.
Maybe we should have a competition to name these groups. Just to make it easier in PB threads.
Group 1 could be called The Millers (after Ms Gina Miller). The Blairites has been taken.
What should Group 2 be called?
There are other groups. One of the largest, one in which I would place myself is:
Those who are appalled at the result of the referendum, who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU, who see the whole Brexit project heading for the rocks, with no real prospect of avoiding very real pain. All that can be done is to prepare the first aid kit for the inevitable breaking of bones that is coming. From the sounds of it, Sir John is in exactly this category.
I rather thought group 2 included this category. But if you want to have another category, go ahead. All I was trying to do was distinguish between those who were making criticisms because they wanted to reverse the decision and those who were doing so because they wanted to ensure that future decisions are less bad than they might otherwise be. (How appalled or otherwise at the result they were was irrelevant to my categorization.)
"altogether too Panglossian" is itself altogether too Panglossian in how positively I regard the prospect of Brexit. They aren't words you use about moral disasters. Most Remainers in my group aren't particularly interested in making Brexit work better because it seems like a fool's errand and one that would only assist knaves in their ambitions.
In any case, as a group, Leavers are unusually uninterested in learning from criticism of their plans. There wouldn't be much point trying to help. They think they know best and aren't in the least bit interested in listening to external views (or "appeasing", as they would have it).
@Peston: Major tells me he wishes Theresa May well in her Brexit talks and has no intention to backseat drive, as Thatcher did with him
@RobDotHutton: Major, asked if he's undermining May like Thatcher did him: "I would have been very happy for Margaret to have made 1 speech every 8 months"
Miss Cyclefree, I said "The Merchants" as in Chaucer below...
And it is a brilliant choice.
So we have:-
- The Millers - The Merchants - The Franks (as per Mr Meeks below and in honour of his previous name. Plus it is v close the Franklins so I hope he will forgive me and it has a certain European feel to it so rather comme il faut, I feel).
Germans appear to accept that the UK may not make contributions to EU budget from 2019.
"According to an internal Finance Ministry report in September, Germany may have to contribute an extra 4.5 billion euros in 2019 and 2020, after Britain leaves."
I agree with him entirely in that bit. There will be people seeking to undermine or prevent Brexit through underhand means because they cannot democratically manage it, but those pursuing the democratic path to Brexit are not helped by people not feeling able to express concern or offer their thoughts, even critical ones. I am sure all reasonable people would agree, and so even if they think Major a deluded has been about the worthiness of Brexit or what needs to happen now, we can overcome his points rather than think he and those like him should shut up.
Yesterday I spent some time asking Leavers to contemplate why Remainers weren't changing their minds. Responses divided between:
1) But we keep telling you that you're wrong, what more can we do? 2) We don't care what Remainers think, we've won our referendum and that's that. 3) Remainers have the temerity not to change their minds and it's their fault.
The brittle way in which Leavers respond to every concern expressed makes it most unlikely that the country will pull together behind Brexit. If Britain remains divided, Brexit will almost inevitably fail. Yet Leavers show no interest in addressing this.
Most odd.
Your own, as you have admitted deliberately provocative, attitude may not have encouraged a thoughtful response in fairness, but I think it is fair to say too many respond too negatively and hostilely to any expressed concern.
Some remainers are clearly, I would argue, not interested in being reached out to, which hardly helps heal division, but the greater burden would need to fall on we the victors I think.
Delete "greater" and replace with "sole". If you want to make this work, you'd better start thinking fast how. So far not a single major Leaver figure has made any meaningful attempt to bring Remainers into the fold.
In case you missed it both the PM and the Chancellor are former Remainers.
You'll need a bloody big Cabinet if that's the only way you can get Remainers on side.
It isn't. It is just one of the more obvious ways of showing Mr Meeks is talking bollocks.
Miss Cyclefree, so, the Millers are the ones who want to stop us leaving the EU, the Merchants want to soften the departure, and the Franks are the ones who just want to be grumpy and watch everything fail?
When Mrs C asked Mr. Isam about circumcision I don't think she was asking for volunteers...
Whilst male circumcision is not as life destroying as FGM, I cannot think of any reason to inflict it on a healthy baby boy and sometimes it goes horribly wrong.
Basically cutting bits off your kids for purely cultural reasons should be outlawed.
Agree entirely. A worrying symptom born of the insane idea that children can be considered adherents of a religion "a Muslim child" "a Jewish child" "A Christian child" etc.
If children wish to be religious, let them choose to become so at age 18.
Totally agree. I’m constantly amazed that there have been no prosecutions for FGM. And totally agree about using Health Visitors to check.
Has there really not been a single prosecution in the UK wrt FGM? - I find that very surprising.
Barbaric – the only word to describe such a hideous practice.
The EStablishment flailing is quite a sight to behold presently.
The Ex-stablishment.
It must be utterly gut-wrenching for people who have advocated for an organisation for most of their political lives to suddenly see the public say, "no thanks, we have given it a chance and think it's a failure".
How and in what ways is Theresa May and her increasingly socially conservative government not the Establishment?
Where was that said?
It's fair to characterise Blair, Major etc as the Ex-stablishment though.
People who once mattered. People who shaped the European Britain the people rejected last June.
It seemed to be Mortimer's implication, that May and her merry band of bores are somehow an anti-Establishment force. In fact, they are a bunch of curtain-twitchers, by and large.
1. Those who want to remain in the EU, are appalled at the result of the referendum and would like to see the decision reversed in some way. Their most articulate spokesman so far is one T Blair.
2. Those who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU but are concerned that the consequences and the trade-offs needed are poorly understood and/or communicated by the government and that it is altogether too Panglossian in its approach to how Brexit will be implemented.
Criticisms from the group in 2 are worth listening to because they may help the government make better decisions.
Maybe we should have a competition to name these groups. Just to make it easier in PB threads.
Group 1 could be called The Millers (after Ms Gina Miller). The Blairites has been taken.
What should Group 2 be called?
There are other groups. One of the largest, one in which I would place myself is:
Those who are appalled at the result of the referendum, who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU, who see the whole Brexit project heading for the rocks, with no real prospect of avoiding very real pain. All that can be done is to prepare the first aid kit for the inevitable breaking of bones that is coming. From the sounds of it, Sir John is in exactly this category.
I rather thought group 2 included this category. But if you want to have another category, go ahead. All I was trying to do was distinguish between those who were making criticisms because they wanted to reverse the decision and those who were doing so because they wanted to ensure that future decisions are less bad than they might otherwise be. (How appalled or otherwise at the result they were was irrelevant to my categorization.)
Indeed, and emotiveness does not really add to anything when making such a categorisation. I would count myself as willing to make and hear criticisms of how Brexit is being conducted, because that helps make better decisions (we've already seen an example of this with a need to debate in parliament various aspects which would have been reserve to a minister), and it is the case that all critiques are being dismissed as the work of the group who are seeking to reverse, which would be a mistake.
I agree with him entirely in that bit. There will be people seeking to undermine or prevent Brexit through underhand means because they cannot democratically manage it, but those pursuing the democratic path to Brexit are not helped by people not feeling able to express concern or offer their thoughts, even critical ones. I am sure all reasonable people would agree, and so even if they think Major a deluded has been about the worthiness of Brexit or what needs to happen now, we can overcome his points rather than think he and those like him should shut up.
Yesterday I spent some time asking Leavers to contemplate why Remainers weren't changing their minds. Responses divided between:
1) But we keep telling you that you're wrong, what more can we do? 2) We don't care what Remainers think, we've won our referendum and that's that. 3) Remainers have the temerity not to change their minds and it's their fault.
The brittle way in which Leavers respond to every concern expressed makes it most unlikely that the country will pull together behind Brexit. If Britain remains divided, Brexit will almost inevitably fail. Yet Leavers show no interest in addressing this.
Most odd.
Your own, as you have admitted deliberately provocative, attitude may not have encouraged a thoughtful response in fairness, but I think it is fair to say too many respond too negatively and hostilely to any expressed concern.
Some remainers are clearly, I would argue, not interested in being reached out to, which hardly helps heal division, but the greater burden would need to fall on we the victors I think.
Delete "greater" and replace with "sole". If you want to make this work, you'd better start thinking fast how. So far not a single major Leaver figure has made any meaningful attempt to bring Remainers into the fold.
In case you missed it both the PM and the Chancellor are former Remainers. Moreover the rank hypocrisy of some Remainers is stunning. You spend all your time telling us what a disaster it will be and how Leavers have to take full responsibility for the disasters you claim are coming and then in the next breath moan you are not being brought into the fold.
Miss Cyclefree, I said "The Merchants" as in Chaucer below...
And it is a brilliant choice.
So we have:-
- The Millers - The Merchants - The Franks (as per Mr Meeks below and in honour of his previous name. Plus it is v close the Franklins so I hope he will forgive me and it has a certain European feel to it so rather comme il faut, I feel).
There we go.
If only Brexit turns out to be that easy.....
I fear we already have to adjust the names for those of us with perhaps less of a grounding in Chaucer.
He's become a ribbon cutter. Like a town mayor or something. LOL.
Hardly - currently active politicians are always cutting ribbons or formally opening things, its hardly a sign of anything. Cameron is now out of the game, to be sure, but ribbon cutting shows nothing.
I rather thought group 2 included this category. But if you want to have another category, go ahead. All I was trying to do was distinguish between those who were making criticisms because they wanted to reverse the decision and those who were doing so because they wanted to ensure that future decisions are less bad than they might otherwise be. (How appalled or otherwise at the result they were was irrelevant to my categorization.)
"altogether too Panglossian" is itself altogether too Panglossian in how positively I regard the prospect of Brexit. They aren't words you use about moral disasters. Most Remainers in my group aren't particularly interested in making Brexit work better because it seems like a fool's errand and one that would only assist knaves in their ambitions.
In any case, as a group, Leavers are unusually uninterested in learning from criticism of their plans. There wouldn't be much point trying to help. They think they know best and aren't in the least bit interested in listening to external views (or "appeasing", as they would have it).
I understand why you have described the result as a moral disaster. While I share your concerns about xenophobia etc I find I cannot describe the result of a referendum in a democratic country such as Britain as a moral disaster, though it may turn out to be an economic one. Whatever my own feelings I found it a good thing that so many people who had not previously voted decided to vote. Voter engagement is a good thing. Those who didn't manage to engage the voters to agree with them need to ask some hard questions of themselves.
While one can deplore how immigration and immigrants are discussed I think it is also a democratic disaster and - if you want to talk in these terms - a moral disaster - not to take account of people's views on subjects as important as immigration. It is not something which is or should be off limits as a subject for political debate.
I agree that it is a shame that too many Leavers in government are not willing to listen to sensible advice. This does not bode well. Still, this is my country and I want it to do well for mine and my childrens' sake. Nothing I say or write matters. Still, I have spent my working life trying to find solutions for problems caused by others so I'm not tremendously fond of people standing on the side saying what a mess it all is rather than trying to help.
Miss Cyclefree, I said "The Merchants" as in Chaucer below...
And it is a brilliant choice.
So we have:-
- The Millers - The Merchants - The Franks (as per Mr Meeks below and in honour of his previous name. Plus it is v close the Franklins so I hope he will forgive me and it has a certain European feel to it so rather comme il faut, I feel).
There we go.
If only Brexit turns out to be that easy.....
What about the Brexiteer categories?
- The Faragiste Firestarters: Those whose primary goal is simply the destruction of the EU and couldn't care less what else gets destroyed in the process. - The Hannanite Hypocrites: Those who are happy to give away sovereignty as long as it's to people who are white and speak English. - The Duncan Smith Dunces: Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.
I rather thought group 2 included this category. But if you want to have another category, go ahead. All I was trying to do was distinguish between those who were making criticisms because they wanted to reverse the decision and those who were doing so because they wanted to ensure that future decisions are less bad than they might otherwise be. (How appalled or otherwise at the result they were was irrelevant to my categorization.)
"altogether too Pand have it).
I understand why you have described the result as a moral disaster. While I share your concerns about xenophobia etc I find I cannot describe the result of a referendum in a democratic country such as Britain as a moral disaster, though it may turn out to be an economic one. Whatever my own feelings I found it a good thing that so many people who had not previously voted decided to vote. Voter engagement is a good thing. Those who didn't manage to engage the voters to agree with them need to ask some hard questions of themselves.
While one can deplore how immigration and immigrants are discussed I think it is also a democratic disaster and - if you want to talk in these terms - a moral disaster - not to take account of people's views on subjects as important as immigration. It is not something which is or should be off limits as a subject for political debate.
I agree that it is a shame that too many Leavers in government are not willing to listen to sensible advice. This does not bode well. Still, this is my country and I want it to do well for mine and my childrens' sake. Nothing I say or write matters. Still, I have spent my working life trying to find solutions for problems caused by others so I'm not tremendously fond of people standing on the side saying what a mess it all is rather than trying to help.
Not to embarrass you with effusive praise, but I would like to thank you for your ever thoughtful and considered opinions on such matters as these, which I often find to be helpful even when I do not agree with your conclusions, as well as setting an example too few follow which I would wish to emulate.
Miss Cyclefree, I said "The Merchants" as in Chaucer below...
And it is a brilliant choice.
So we have:-
- The Millers - The Merchants - The Franks (as per Mr Meeks below and in honour of his previous name. Plus it is v close the Franklins so I hope he will forgive me and it has a certain European feel to it so rather comme il faut, I feel).
There we go.
If only Brexit turns out to be that easy.....
What about the Brexiteer categories?
- The Faragiste Firestarters: Those whose primary goal is simply the destruction of the EU and couldn't care less what else gets destroyed in the process. - The Hannanite Hypocrites: Those who are happy to give away sovereignty as long as it's to people who are white and speak English. - The Duncan Smith Dunces: Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.
Telling that there is no positive category, unlike for the remainers above.
1. Those who want to remain in the EU, are appalled at the result of the referendum and would like to see the decision reversed in some way. Their most articulate spokesman so far is one T Blair.
2. Those who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU but are concerned that the consequences and the trade-offs needed are poorly understood and/or communicated by the government and that it is altogether too Panglossian in its approach to how Brexit will be implemented.
Criticisms from the group in 2 are worth listening to because they may help the government make better decisions.
Maybe we should have a competition to name these groups. Just to make it easier in PB threads.
Group 1 could be called The Millers (after Ms Gina Miller). The Blairites has been taken.
What should Group 2 be called?
The Millers are surely those who pretend to be in group 2 but are actually in group 1?
FPT: @Roger: "To violate someone by a compulsory test would be unacceptable and furthermore the social implications of getting the police involved in what is likely to be a closely knit religious family could be devastating. I'm afraid however much people think it's a crime that deserves punishment the best way of dealing with it is by an intense publicity campaign. "
Rubbish: when I was a child at school we automatically had health inspections by the school nurse which would have picked up FGM. A health check to detect whether a crime - a brutal crime - has been committed is not a violation.
The idea we shouldn't prosecute crimes because it might upset the perpetrators is utterly bizarre. And frankly gross: read up if you can on what is actually involved in cutting a girl, the pain involved at the time and the continuing pain for the rest of their lives, the pain involved in not being able to lose menstrual blood, for instance, and developing a cyst which has to be removed surgically and imagine that happening to young girls when they are tiny and throughout their teenage years and thereafter and never being able to enjoy sex.
It is an appalling crime. I don't give a fig for religious or cultural sensibilities. Let's call a spade a spade. It's barbaric and it should not be happening to British girls. Nor do I give two hoots about how close bloody knit the families are. Girls are being horribly maimed. Crimes are being committed. The answer is not some public information film, though that may be a part. A few prosecutions and children made wards of court pour encourager les autres would send a clear message about what can and cannot happen in our society.
We're not talking about advice on eating more fruit, for crying out loud.
I'm not suggesting it's acceptable just that compulsory inspections in schools isn't a good way of stopping it. Young girls will be sent abroad and others will accept their punishment after the deed is done.
Families must be shown that it is unacceptable cruel and dangerous. Don't think because people are what you might describe as religious fanatics that they don't love their children just as much as anyone else often more.
When Aids first started spreading often through shared needles they quickly discovered that draconian punishments had no effect. Advertising campaigns free needles free condoms and education worked much better.
I have a friend who is working on a documentary about it at the moment. It's at a very early stage but I've talked to her about it and it's much more complicated than just locking them up.
I rather thought group 2 included this category. But if you want to have another category, go ahead. All I was trying to do was distinguish between those who were making criticisms because they wanted to reverse the decision and those who were doing so because they wanted to ensure that future decisions are less bad than they might otherwise be. (How appalled or otherwise at the result they were was irrelevant to my categorization.)
"altogether too Pand have it).
I understand why you have described the result as a moral disaster. While I share your concerns about xenophobia etc I find I cannot describe the result of a referendum in a democratic country such as Britain as a moral disaster, though it may turn out to be an economic one. Whatever my own feelings I found it a good thing that so many people who had not previously voted decided to vote. Voter engagement is a good thing. Those who didn't manage to engage the voters to agree with them need to ask some hard questions of themselves.
While one can deplore how immigration and immigrants are discussed I think it is also a democratic disaster and - if you want to talk in these terms - a moral disaster - not to take account of people's views on subjects as important as immigration. It is not something which is or should be off limits as a subject for political debate.
I agree that it is a shame that too many Leavers in government are not willing to listen to sensible advice. This does not bode well. Still, this is my country and I want it to do well for mine and my childrens' sake. Nothing I say or write matters. Still, I have spent my working life trying to find solutions for problems caused by others so I'm not tremendously fond of people standing on the side saying what a mess it all is rather than trying to help.
Not to embarrass you with effusive praise, but I would like to thank you for your ever thoughtful and considered opinions on such matters as these, which I often find to be helpful even when I do not agree with your conclusions, as well as setting an example too few follow which I would wish to emulate.
I agree that it is a shame that too many Leavers in government are not willing to listen to sensible advice. This does not bode well. Still, this is my country and I want it to do well for mine and my childrens' sake. Nothing I say or write matters.
Still, I have spent my working life trying to find solutions for problems caused by others so I'm not tremendously fond of people standing on the side saying what a mess it all is rather than trying to help.
My problem is that how do you help anyone who is unwilling to listen? It seems that all I can do for now is to let it be known that not everyone is in agreement with Brexit. I am not a public figure so as a voice in the wilderness I do not see what I can do about it.
It's odd how so many Conservatives dislike David Cameron these days. Back in 2015 he was a hero on here.
In these febrile times people will not allow for him to be anything other than hero or villain. Truth is I think he was a decent enough PM who wasn't up to the greatest challenge he faced and failed as a result, but to hear people now you'd think he had no positives, which is nonsense. I've seen elected conservatives publicly scoff when opponents quote something cameron said to criticise them, when a year earlier they'd have been bootlicking in all probability.
1. Those who want to remain in the EU, are appalled at the result of the referendum and would like to see the decision reversed in some way. Their most articulate spokesman so far is one T Blair.
2. Those who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU but are concerned that the consequences and the trade-offs needed are poorly understood and/or communicated by the government and that it is altogether too Panglossian in its approach to how Brexit will be implemented.
Criticisms from the group in 2 are worth listening to because they may help the government make better decisions.
Maybe we should have a competition to name these groups. Just to make it easier in PB threads.
Group 1 could be called The Millers (after Ms Gina Miller). The Blairites has been taken.
What should Group 2 be called?
The Millers are surely those who pretend to be in group 2 but are actually in group 1?
Mrs C, although I disagree with you fundamentally about the EU and federalism, it's always good to speak with reasonable people of a differing perspective. It can be easy to fall into a trap of believing, due to their vocal nonsense, that those noisy persons on the fringes are in fact far more numerous than they are.
As well as a great mass of people in the middle, the vast majority on this side or that on a given political issue are entirely sensible and good. The whole point of democracy is that varying but valid opinions can co-exist, and that reasonable people can hear the same arguments, observe the same evidence, and yet reach differing conclusions.
1. Those who want to remain in the EU, are appalled at the result of the referendum and would like to see the decision reversed in some way. Their most articulate spokesman so far is one T Blair.
2. Those who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU but are concerned that the consequences and the trade-offs needed are poorly understood and/or communicated by the government and that it is altogether too Panglossian in its approach to how Brexit will be implemented.
Criticisms from the group in 2 are worth listening to because they may help the government make better decisions.
Maybe we should have a competition to name these groups. Just to make it easier in PB threads.
Group 1 could be called The Millers (after Ms Gina Miller). The Blairites has been taken.
What should Group 2 be called?
The Millers are surely those who pretend to be in group 2 but are actually in group 1?
1. Those who want to remain in the EU, are appalled at the result of the referendum and would like to see the decision reversed in some way. Their most articulate spokesman so far is one T Blair.
2. Those who accept that Britain will be leaving the EU but are concerned that the consequences and the trade-offs needed are poorly understood and/or communicated by the government and that it is altogether too Panglossian in its approach to how Brexit will be implemented.
Criticisms from the group in 2 are worth listening to because they may help the government make better decisions.
Maybe we should have a competition to name these groups. Just to make it easier in PB threads.
Group 1 could be called The Millers (after Ms Gina Miller). The Blairites has been taken.
What should Group 2 be called?
The Millers are surely those who pretend to be in group 2 but are actually in group 1?
It's odd how so many Conservatives dislike David Cameron these days. Back in 2015 he was a hero on here.
In these febrile times people will not allow for him to be anything other than hero or villain. Truth is I think he was a decent enough PM who wasn't up to the greatest challenge he faced and failed as a result, but to hear people now you'd think he had no positives, which is nonsense. I've seen elected conservatives publicly scoff when opponents quote something cameron said to criticise them, when a year earlier they'd have been bootlicking in all probability.
Some conservative thought he was a liar from the "100k, no ifs, no buts" onwards. Gratuitously making a promise that he not only had no intention of keeping, but couldn't not keep if he wanted to, due to freedom of movement, is a lie of the worst sort.
Others were prepared to forgive him that, but lost any faith in him when he talked lots of sensible ideas in his Bloomberg speech, and then came back from Brussels with the smallest bit of tinsel imaginable after his renegotiation, and tried to tell it to the nation as a manifesto for the second coming.
His main problem for all but the TSE wing of the party is that he isn't really a conservative, he viewed the Party as a bit of an inconvenience, and wasn't really in tune with the needs and views of its members and supporters. If he hadn't been born into a well-to-do set he would have been a Liberal Democrat, so close did his views chime with those of Nick Clegg, ofcourse ambition, and desire to govern may have overcome that at some point.
"altogether too Panglossian" is itself altogether too Panglossian in how positively I regard the prospect of Brexit. They aren't words you use about moral disasters. Most Remainers in my group aren't particularly interested in making Brexit work better because it seems like a fool's errand and one that would only assist knaves in their ambitions.
In any case, as a group, Leavers are unusually uninterested in learning from criticism of their plans. There wouldn't be much point trying to help. They think they know best and aren't in the least bit interested in listening to external views (or "appeasing", as they would have it).
What a stupid thing to say. Brexit is going to happen in some form and any responsible adult Remainer is trying to optimise the way in which it happens. Unless you intend to migrate permanently to Hungary (and I am surprised you can live comfortably with the idea even of having a holiday home there, given their new migrants-in-shipping-containers policy) you need to grow up and do the same. The attitude that you and your "group" are too fine and fastidious to engage with the awful working man and his dreary lower-class stabs at political thought really paid off in the referendum itself, didn't it? The first thing you need to take on board is that Brexit is YOUR fault; Leave didn't win the referendum, you lost it. At the moment you sound like an Ingerland supporter complaining that the exit from the Euros last year was Iceland's fault. If you and your "group" (eeeurgh at the term) had for one second got off your refined, self regarding arses and gone out and campaigned in real life instead of keeping yourselves at a safe distance from the smelly horrible prloes by twatting about on the internet, perhaps things might have gone differently?
Mrs C, although I disagree with you fundamentally about the EU and federalism, it's always good to speak with reasonable people of a differing perspective. It can be easy to fall into a trap of believing, due to their vocal nonsense, that those noisy persons on the fringes are in fact far more numerous than they are.
As well as a great mass of people in the middle, the vast majority on this side or that on a given political issue are entirely sensible and good. The whole point of democracy is that varying but valid opinions can co-exist, and that reasonable people can hear the same arguments, observe the same evidence, and yet reach differing conclusions.
It's odd how so many Conservatives dislike David Cameron these days. Back in 2015 he was a hero on here.
In these febrile times people will not allow for him to be anything other than hero or villain. Truth is I think he was a decent enough PM who wasn't up to the greatest challenge he faced and failed as a result, but to hear people now you'd think he had no positives, which is nonsense. I've seen elected conservatives publicly scoff when opponents quote something cameron said to criticise them, when a year earlier they'd have been bootlicking in all probability.
Cameron did something very important for the Conservative Party: he opened the party up to individuals from many different backgrounds and walks of life. I did not like his polices on welfare, and how austerity was implemented. But what he did with the modernisation of the Conservative Party was a great thing. When you look at the direction of the GOP, and the British Conservative Party you have to be thankful for what he did. Right now because of the mess Labour's in Britain is currently a one-party state. We'll obviously have to wait and see what Brexit brings, but so far the government could be far more radical and right-wing than it actually is. When I look at what Trump is doing I'm honestly very happy that things are more 'normal' here. If anything Trump has made me even more anti-Corbyn than I was before. I don't want a political revolution where everything is radically turned over. Liberal Democracy is not perfect, but it is much better than any of the alternatives that I have seen so far.
I understand why you have described the result as a moral disaster. While I share your concerns about xenophobia etc I find I cannot describe the result of a referendum in a democratic country such as Britain as a moral disaster, though it may turn out to be an economic one. Whatever my own feelings I found it a good thing that so many people who had not previously voted decided to vote. Voter engagement is a good thing. Those who didn't manage to engage the voters to agree with them need to ask some hard questions of themselves.
While one can deplore how immigration and immigrants are discussed I think it is also a democratic disaster and - if you want to talk in these terms - a moral disaster - not to take account of people's views on subjects as important as immigration. It is not something which is or should be off limits as a subject for political debate.
I agree that it is a shame that too many Leavers in government are not willing to listen to sensible advice. This does not bode well. Still, this is my country and I want it to do well for mine and my childrens' sake. Nothing I say or write matters. Still, I have spent my working life trying to find solutions for problems caused by others so I'm not tremendously fond of people standing on the side saying what a mess it all is rather than trying to help.
A point I have made a few times here. As of now, Leavers can't make Brexit work while Remainers don't want to. Leavers have never accepted Brexit has consequences and are incapable of dealing with those consequences because they don't think they exist. Theresa May is an honorary member of that category for slightly different reasons. She has never explained why the issues she had with leaving the EU are no longer there. Remainers think the project is a bad one, not of their own making, and don't see why they should get involved, especially when they are going be blamed for any downsides anyway.
It's a bum situation to be in. I suppose it could change.
Comments
Actually, the Major Meeks's has an alliterative swing to it
If children wish to be religious, let them choose to become so at age 18.
It's almost worth betting on who will be first to pop up and say something about leaver frothers.
Surer than night following day.
Think Canterbury Tales: The Pardoners or The Knights.
Something like that.
I have said many times, I am happy with the softest of soft brexits. That is ignored because it doesn't give the refuseniks something to wail about.
In hindsight, Mr T Blair still looks mostly sweaty and shifty. Maybe another 10 years are needed?
I'd expect Clegg and possibly Osborne next. Both before A50 is invoked.
Here's what the victims of FGM should do - sue the government through criminal neglegence. Even if it doesn't work, it might just shame them into taking action.
Good news: "We haven't left yet"
Bad news: "I told you so"
WMP Sentinel Team @wmpsentinel
Hi, I'm DC Squires, WMP FGM expert. For clarity @WMPolice WILL prosecute parents or cutters if in the child's best interests. #FGMletstalk
@SeanT can't you or a contact write an article please?
It must be utterly gut-wrenching for people who have advocated for an organisation for most of their political lives to suddenly see the public say, "no thanks, we have given it a chance and think it's a failure".
It is both hypocritical and moronic.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-macron-idUSKBN16626F?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I'm up to, er, minus 50 or so...
.
.
Unbelievable!
When is it in the child's interest to get mutilated?
It's fair to characterise Blair, Major etc as the Ex-stablishment though.
People who once mattered. People who shaped the European Britain the people rejected last June.
In any case, as a group, Leavers are unusually uninterested in learning from criticism of their plans. There wouldn't be much point trying to help. They think they know best and aren't in the least bit interested in listening to external views (or "appeasing", as they would have it).
So we have:-
- The Millers
- The Merchants
- The Franks (as per Mr Meeks below and in honour of his previous name. Plus it is v close the Franklins so I hope he will forgive me and it has a certain European feel to it so rather comme il faut, I feel).
There we go.
If only Brexit turns out to be that easy.....
Labour is that vacuum.
Germans appear to accept that the UK may not make contributions to EU budget from 2019.
"According to an internal Finance Ministry report in September, Germany may have to contribute an extra 4.5 billion euros in 2019 and 2020, after Britain leaves."
Barbaric
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/836290035532062721
Didn't we learn with 1,400 children abused in Rotherham what happens when we ignore abuse for "cultural reasons"?
This is hilarious. He's outside of the very circle of influence that he used to dominate. Has a British PM's stock ever fallen so fast...?
Looks like the establishment is on maneuvers...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/27/ngo-rescues-off-libya-encourage-traffickers-eu-borders-chief
While one can deplore how immigration and immigrants are discussed I think it is also a democratic disaster and - if you want to talk in these terms - a moral disaster - not to take account of people's views on subjects as important as immigration. It is not something which is or should be off limits as a subject for political debate.
I agree that it is a shame that too many Leavers in government are not willing to listen to sensible advice. This does not bode well. Still, this is my country and I want it to do well for mine and my childrens' sake. Nothing I say or write matters. Still, I have spent my working life trying to find solutions for problems caused by others so I'm not tremendously fond of people standing on the side saying what a mess it all is rather than trying to help.
Tories are basically unopposable - and the pet project of the British Euromaniacs is crumbling before their eyes.
- The Faragiste Firestarters: Those whose primary goal is simply the destruction of the EU and couldn't care less what else gets destroyed in the process.
- The Hannanite Hypocrites: Those who are happy to give away sovereignty as long as it's to people who are white and speak English.
- The Duncan Smith Dunces: Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.
Good night all.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-military-budget-historic-increase-a7602241.html
A deeply silly post. It's 'manoeuvres'. We're not Yankee Doodles.
Although I do prefer their modern day take on Sherlock Holmes (the third Elementary episode tonight, I think).
Has he become so disliked because he campaigned for Remain? It seemed pretty unlikely that he was going to campaign for Leave back in May 2015.
I wonder how years down the line May will be remembered by PBers? So far she hasn't been that radical of a PM (which I think is a good thing).
Families must be shown that it is unacceptable cruel and dangerous. Don't think because people are what you might describe as religious fanatics that they don't love their children just as much as anyone else often more.
When Aids first started spreading often through shared needles they quickly discovered that draconian punishments had no effect. Advertising campaigns free needles free condoms and education worked much better.
I have a friend who is working on a documentary about it at the moment. It's at a very early stage but I've talked to her about it and it's much more complicated than just locking them up.
What about the Dancers - those who feel an EU superstate is inevitable and don't want the UK to be a political colony of Brussels?
Mr. kle4, agree entirely. Alas that Miss Cyclefree is not PM.
As well as a great mass of people in the middle, the vast majority on this side or that on a given political issue are entirely sensible and good. The whole point of democracy is that varying but valid opinions can co-exist, and that reasonable people can hear the same arguments, observe the same evidence, and yet reach differing conclusions.
Really, you idiot. Nobody knew it ?
Others were prepared to forgive him that, but lost any faith in him when he talked lots of sensible ideas in his Bloomberg speech, and then came back from Brussels with the smallest bit of tinsel imaginable after his renegotiation, and tried to tell it to the nation as a manifesto for the second coming.
His main problem for all but the TSE wing of the party is that he isn't really a conservative, he viewed the Party as a bit of an inconvenience, and wasn't really in tune with the needs and views of its members and supporters. If he hadn't been born into a well-to-do set he would have been a Liberal Democrat, so close did his views chime with those of Nick Clegg, ofcourse ambition, and desire to govern may have overcome that at some point.
When someone makes promises such as that then breaks them and runs away, I guess people go off them
It's a bum situation to be in. I suppose it could change.
But I noticed people turning against Cameron even during the campaign.