Mr Glenn: that is a good jury speech. But how would you answer my 3 questions? Genuinely curious.
1. Given that we started with a referendum, it's difficult not to argue that only another referendum could confer democratic legitimacy to an outcome that didn't involve leaving the EU. The difficult question is the precise process and the precise question, since the very fact of holding such a vote would indicate something deeper than simple a change of opinion within the political class or the public; it would indicate that Brexit had been tried and had failed, otherwise we would simply be getting on with it. In my view the first necessary step is that politicians on the pro-Brexit side need to give up and decide having confronted all the issues, we would be better off remaining. If that happens then the whole thing could be choreographed more easily.
2. This depends to a large extent on timing. If we seek to reverse Brexit well within the Article 50 process, it's possible to see how the EU27 could be persuaded to allow a revocation of Article 50, otherwise it would be through a new accession treaty that gave us essentially the same position minus the Euro opt out and rebate. The position on Schengen is more subtle.
3. Yes, in practice I think the choice for voters will be hard Brexit or hard Remain.
People who refuse to take available unskilled/low skilled jobs shouldn't get unemployment benefit, I have been saying it on here for years
I might be wrong (fortunately never having been in that position), but I thought they already did?
A friend got made redundant from a high-tech job and was out of work for some time. He signed on (had a family to support), but was offered a no-skilled job after an interview. He refused it, and got his money stopped as a result. His reasoning was that the jobs he was being interviewed for were scarcely worth the bother, and he could use the time up-skilling and looking for a better job.
I'm glad to say he soon got one, and has helped make the country a lot of money in the years since.
I'm not saying the system's wrong, or complaining about it. It's just that the key to remaining on JSA might be to be unskilled enough never to be offered the jobs you're searching (apply?) for, with no incentive to upskill.
On Nate Silver's chart he's at 37.4%. He's been lower - 36.6% - but these are dangerously low numbers, If he touches 35% on Nate's model, I think it's over.
Unless he dies or something really drastic happens, we are stuck with him for four years. I doubt however if he will run for re-election.
I agree with this summary in most respects but am genuinely baffled by one comment: Do you seriously think Trump and Corbyn resemble each other in being wealthy mealy-mouthed populists ?!?
Do you not think they resemble each other in that way?
Trump is much richer than Corbyn, but otherwise they are in many crucial respects very similar. Both are members of the establishment they purport to despise, both offer huge numbers of goodies that they insist other people will pay for (what Hopi Sen called the 'would you like a pony?' policy approach) both will unhesitatingly support their allies no matter what awful things they do and both will equivocate or seek to turn the conversation to the less savoury aspects of their opponents when pressed.
Of course there are important differences as well - nuclear weapons and climate change spring to mind - but the similarities between them are far more than superficial.
Oh, and they are both very good campaigners but very incompetent administrators. And just to be cheeky, they both came a narrow second in the popular vote having been repeatedly written off as having no hope of doing well.
Ok, I quite like the outrageousness of your suggestion! There are some similarities (both good campaigners, both wierdly charismatic, neither follow conventional political wisdom).
But many, many more differences imo. For example:
Trump is nasty; Corbyn is (possibly too) nice. Trump was born mega-rich; Corbyn just middle-class comfortable. Trump is unprincipled; Corbyn is (too) principled. Trump trashes those around him; Corbyn is loyal to his supporters. Trump is illiterate; Corbyn not. Trump is narcissic; Corbyn not.
... I could go on.
As for getting rid of Trump, why would the Democrats want to do that just now? He's clearly ineffective and if he went now they'd have Pence as POTUS. Better to let an ieffective Trump continue to drag the GOP down until 2020. I can see they might impeach him (i.e. start the process) but they wouldn't really want him to resign ahead of 2020.
Unless he dies or something really drastic happens, we are stuck with him for four years. I doubt however if he will run for re-election.
I agree with this summary in most respects but am genuinely baffled by one comment: Do you seriously think Trump and Corbyn resemble each other in being wealthy mealy-mouthed populists ?!?
Do you not think they resemble each other in that way?
Trump is much richer than Corbyn, but otherwise they are in many crucial respects very similar. Both are members of the establishment they purport to despise, both offer huge numbers of goodies that they insist other people will pay for (what Hopi Sen called the 'would you like a pony?' policy approach) both will unhesitatingly support their allies no matter what awful things they do and both will equivocate or seek to turn the conversation to the less savoury aspects of their opponents when pressed.
Of course there are important differences as well - nuclear weapons and climate change spring to mind - but the similarities between them are far more than superficial.
Oh, and they are both very good campaigners but very incompetent administrators. And just to be cheeky, they both came a narrow second in the popular vote having been repeatedly written off as having no hope of doing well.
Ok, I quite like the outrageousness of your suggestion! There are some similarities (both good campaigners, both wierdly charismatic, neither follow conventional political wisdom).
But many, many more differences imo. For example:
Trump is nasty; Corbyn is (possibly too) nice. Trump was born mega-rich; Corbyn just middle-class comfortable. Trump is unprincipled; Corbyn is (too) principled. Trump trashes those around him; Corbyn is loyal to his supporters. Trump is illiterate; Corbyn not. Trump is narcissic; Corbyn not.
... I could go on.
As for getting rid of Trump, why would the Democrats want to do that just now? He's clearly ineffective and if he went now they'd have Pence as POTUS. Better to let an ieffective Trump continue to drag the GOP down until 2020. I can see they might impeach him (i.e. start the process) but they wouldn't really want him to resign ahead of 2020.
1. Given the referendum result, how does any party or group wanting to put a halt to Brexit, gain the necessary democratic legitimacy to enact such a policy?
2. How does such a decision get agreed with the rest of the EU? Is it cancellation of Article 50 so that Britain remains on the same terms as before (minus Cameron's deal) or is it on some new basis?
3. And if the latter, does that require approval by voters?
I can understand all the arguments put forward that Brexit is more complicated and damaging than thought, that our government is proving itself incompetent or has drawn unnecessary red lines etc. But what I don't understand is how those making such arguments propose to achieve what they want and get the necessary democratic backing for it.
That is exactly the point. There is no mechanism. The course has been set, for all practical purposes, since the referendum, and since the invocation of Article 50 it is also set in legal terms. It really is bizarre that so much effort is going into discussion of quality of the hinges on the stable door.
Is that right, though?
Suppose Parliament passes legislation revoking Article 50. Suppose the government sends a letter to the EU saying that it is withdrawing its previous letter. What then happens?
This may all be hugely impractical, politically and in every other way. But those who are advocating the cancellation of Brexit must have some idea of how they would propose to do it. Surely?
The EU say "okay. These are the terms"
On what basis? If Article 50 has been revoked and the letter withdrawn and it is before March 2019, why do we not remain on the same basis as we're currently a member?
That's going to cost someone a lot of money? Who would it be, the captain or the port pilot?
Will the person who beached it be called An Twerp?
Genuine LOL.
A few years back a ship got stuck in the River Nene and broke in three as the tide ebbed. We went to see it (along with most of Norfolk, or so it seemed):
On Nate Silver's chart he's at 37.4%. He's been lower - 36.6% - but these are dangerously low numbers, If he touches 35% on Nate's model, I think it's over.
Unless he dies or something really drastic happens, we are stuck with him for four years. I doubt however if he will run for re-election.
I agree with this summary in most respects but am genuinely baffled by one comment: Do you seriously think Trump and Corbyn resemble each other in being wealthy mealy-mouthed populists ?!?
Do you not think they resemble each other in that way?
o the less savoury aspects of their opponents when pressed.
Of course there are important differences as well - nuclear weapons and climate change spring to mind - but the similarities between them are far more than superficial.
Oh, and they are both very good campaigners but very incompetent administrators. And just to be cheeky, they both came a narrow second in the popular vote having been repeatedly written off as having no hope of doing well.
Ok, I quite like the outrageousness of your suggestion! There are some similarities (both good campaigners, both wierdly charismatic, neither follow conventional political wisdom).
But many, many more differences imo. For example:
Trump is nasty; Corbyn is (possibly too) nice. Trump was born mega-rich; Corbyn just middle-class comfortable. Trump is unprincipled; Corbyn is (too) principled. Trump trashes those around him; Corbyn is loyal to his supporters. Trump is illiterate; Corbyn not. Trump is narcissic; Corbyn not.
... I could go on.
As for getting rid of Trump, why would the Democrats want to do that just now? He's clearly ineffective and if he went now they'd have Pence as POTUS. Better to let an ieffective Trump continue to drag the GOP down until 2020. I can see they might impeach him (i.e. start the process) but they wouldn't really want him to resign ahead of 2020.
No, the Democrats don't want to get rid of him and it wouldn't matter if they did. They can't.
It will be the GOP that gets rid of him and I should think 35% is about the point where they say enough is enough.
Do I hear murmurings of 'How?' I doubt the mechanism will be lacking if there is the political will, and at below 35%, I reckon there will be no shortage of will.
I think the 'democrats' idea has legs. The guy chapman is simply fronting an expeditionary mission. Brexiteers are getting angry which is giving him publicity.
Just got voting papers through for the labour conference arrangements committee elections. The 'left' slate has 200+ nominations, I assume from CLP's. the right/moderate slate has about 70. The left now basically control the labour party. Expect motions on nuclear disarmanent etc.
Similarly the conservative party are controlled by Brexiteers. Hard to see what place there is for liberal remainers.
There has to be a new centre party, although managing the massive diversity of opinion would be very challenging.
If you strip out some of the detail, in essence there is a lot of similarity between the Brexit referendum and the Greek referendum in terms of the nature of the relationship between the electorate of a single member state and the EU.
In both cases from the EU's perspective it was a case of democracy being used as a weapon against the other member states - something that cannot be allowed to stand because it would ultimately make the EU itself untenable. May explicitly called for a mandate to 'strengthen her hand'. The has a duty to call the bluff of any government that tries to use this approach to extract special conditions and all the more so if this is in the context of an exit negotiation which could potentially leave a non member in a more privileged position than other member states.
That's going to cost someone a lot of money? Who would it be, the captain or the port pilot?
Will the person who beached it be called An Twerp?
Genuine LOL.
A few years back a ship got stuck in the River Nene and broke in three as the tide ebbed. We went to see it (along with most of Norfolk, or so it seemed):
Mr Glenn: that is a good jury speech. But how would you answer my 3 questions? Genuinely curious.
1. Given that we started with a referendum, it's difficult not to argue that only another referendum could confer democratic legitimacy to an outcome that didn't involve leaving the EU. The difficult question is the precise process and the precise question, since the very fact of holding such a vote would indicate something deeper than simple a change of opinion within the political class or the public; it would indicate that Brexit had been tried and had failed, otherwise we would simply be getting on with it. In my view the first necessary step is that politicians on the pro-Brexit side need to give up and decide having confronted all the issues, we would be better off remaining. If that happens then the whole thing could be choreographed more easily.
2. This depends to a large extent on timing. If we seek to reverse Brexit well within the Article 50 process, it's possible to see how the EU27 could be persuaded to allow a revocation of Article 50, otherwise it would be through a new accession treaty that gave us essentially the same position minus the Euro opt out and rebate. The position on Schengen is more subtle.
3. Yes, in practice I think the choice for voters will be hard Brexit or hard Remain.
Thank you.
In practice, in relation to 2 it depends on whether the deed is done well before March 2019 or not. Remaining may be an easier decision to sell than rejoining on radically different terms.
Of course there are important differences as well - nuclear weapons and climate change spring to mind - but the similarities between them are far more than superficial.
Oh, and they are both very good campaigners but very incompetent administrators. And just to be cheeky, they both came a narrow second in the popular vote having been repeatedly written off as having no hope of doing well.
Ok, I quite like the outrageousness of your suggestion! There are some similarities (both good campaigners, both wierdly charismatic, neither follow conventional political wisdom).
But many, many more differences imo. For example:
Trump is nasty; Corbyn is (possibly too) nice. Trump was born mega-rich; Corbyn just middle-class comfortable. Trump is unprincipled; Corbyn is (too) principled. Trump trashes those around him; Corbyn is loyal to his supporters. Trump is illiterate; Corbyn not. Trump is narcissic; Corbyn not.
... I could go on.
As for getting rid of Trump, why would the Democrats want to do that just now? He's clearly ineffective and if he went now they'd have Pence as POTUS. Better to let an ieffective Trump continue to drag the GOP down until 2020. I can see they might impeach him (i.e. start the process) but they wouldn't really want him to resign ahead of 2020.
No, the Democrats don't want to get rid of him and it wouldn't matter if they did. They can't.
It will be the GOP that gets rid of him and I should think 35% is about the point where they say enough is enough.
Do I hear murmurings of 'How?' I doubt the mechanism will be lacking if there is the political will, and at below 35%, I reckon there will be no shortage of will.
Well, you may be right. But the GOP could only impeach him with Democrat support. Whilst I agree it would be hard to see how the Dems could avoid supporting that, I find it hard to believe that any party would force the impeachment of their own President. Alternatively, the GOP could lean on Trump behind the scenes to resign. Trouble is, Trump would be completely impervious to any such pressure.
No, I think he's POTUS until 2020, when he will return to his business empire whilst mouthing-off endlessly about how he has Made America Great Again.
His army career was only 4 months, suggesting unsatisfactory performance for some reason. Mental illness and drug abuse would not surprise me. He came from the centre of the US drug belt.Terrorists are often from this sort of drifting background as we have seen on a number of occasions.
Corbyn looks reasonably fit, Trump does not? Corbyn makes jam, Trump jams things? (Incidentally I'm not sure I agree Corbyn is principled. But that is a very long argument for a different time and place.)
If you strip out some of the detail, in essence there is a lot of similarity between the Brexit referendum and the Greek referendum in terms of the nature of the relationship between the electorate of a single member state and the EU.
In both cases from the EU's perspective it was a case of democracy being used as a weapon against the other member states - something that cannot be allowed to stand because it would ultimately make the EU itself untenable. May explicitly called for a mandate to 'strengthen her hand'. The has a duty to call the bluff of any government that tries to use this approach to extract special conditions and all the more so if this is in the context of an exit negotiation which could potentially leave a non member in a more privileged position than other member states.
The UK is not trying to use the referendum to extract better terms of membership from the EU. The UK is seceding.
Greece wanted both to remain members of the Euro, and to have its debts written off.
Well, you may be right. But the GOP could only impeach him with Democrat support. Whilst I agree it would be hard to see how the Dems could avoid supporting that, I find it hard to believe that any party would force the impeachment of their own President. Alternatively, the GOP could lean on Trump behind the scenes to resign. Trouble is, Trump would be completely impervious to any such pressure.
No, I think he's POTUS until 2020, when he will return to his business empire whilst mouthing-off endlessly about how he has Made America Great Again.
In all seriousness, the only scenario where I can see him resigning is if his behaviour as President starts damaging his business empire significantly. It's already taken a few knocks, but if it were threatened with unviability he might well walk. His business is more precious to him than anything (including his wives, to judge from the way he treats them) and if that were threatened he would I think vanish quickly.
But equally I don't think that is an especially likely scenario.
Corbyn looks reasonably fit, Trump does not? Corbyn makes jam, Trump jams things? (Incidentally I'm not sure I agree Corbyn is principled. But that is a very long argument for a different time and place.)
Yeah, you might have me on the Corbyn is principled point.
I just remember watching him squirm over use of Trident on the Leaders' Debate (or was it the Leaders' Interviews by Dimbleby?) Anybody less principled would have just said "of course I'll use it if I have to" even though he clearly has no intention of so doing. But he couldn't say it.
After Dr Tristram Hunt, a man who memorably crossed a union picket line while Shadow Secretary of State for education to deliver a lecture on Marxism and its significance in he growth of working class solidarity movements in the late nineteenth century.
Hitchens may have the germ of a point here. However, just caught him on C4 News where he came across as a rude, arrogant pompous arse. He came to deliver a monologue talking over his adversary, and made a series of statements which may, or may not have validity, but failed to cite any sources, and shouted down any right of reply. He appeared to suggest that imprisoning 2 million more people for drug possession would solve societies ills. It is, of course, a view.
Hitchens may have the germ of a point here. However, just caught him on C4 News where he came across as a rude, arrogant pompous arse. He came to deliver a monologue talking over his adversary, and made a series of statements which may, or may not have validity, but failed to cite any sources, and shouted down any right of reply. He appeared to suggest that imprisoning 2 million more people for drug possession would solve societies ills. It is, of course, a view.
He's a Hitchens. The one they all have in common is that they are utterly convinced of their own rightness. Oh, and that they all talk total bollocks in rather elegant English.
I think the 'democrats' idea has legs. The guy chapman is simply fronting an expeditionary mission. Brexiteers are getting angry which is giving him publicity.
Just got voting papers through for the labour conference arrangements committee elections. The 'left' slate has 200+ nominations, I assume from CLP's. the right/moderate slate has about 70. The left now basically control the labour party. Expect motions on nuclear disarmanent etc.
Similarly the conservative party are controlled by Brexiteers. Hard to see what place there is for liberal remainers.
There has to be a new centre party, although managing the massive diversity of opinion would be very challenging.
The left is better-organised, but winning CLP nominations doesn't always deliver votes. However, I think there's clearly a mood in the party to let the left have a go, within reason. Many of the members who seemed to be centrists are in fact "win first" people, who opposed Corbyn because they felt he couldn't win, not because they objected to left-wing policies per se. Now it appears that he has a fair chance to win, they're not inclined to undermine him.
Conversely, though, the left are not being especially rampant about it - there is no serious support for deselections, nobody serious is proposing withdrawal from NATO, abolition of the monarchy, etc., and I'm not aware of a big push on disarmament either They'll settle for a fair chance to implement something like the 2017 manifesto.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
Driving at rival political protestors is sick and inexcusable terrorism. Driving at little girls eating a meal is worse.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
I think that it is a little more complicated. These may well be bad or mad individuals, but they are the manifestation of a deeper problem in society.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
No, I'm prepared to say Nazism and Islamism are equally vile, but one is more of a threat to us than the other: Islamism. We need to man up and expel.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
Driving at rival political protestors is sick and inexcusable terrorism. Driving at little girls eating a meal is worse.
Early indications seem to point to a sick individual, not terrorism. This from the BBC...
"According to RTL radio, the driver, 39, told police he had wanted to kill himself and had weapons in the car. However, the incident is not being treated as a terror attack, it adds."
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It's the same mentality which allows a young man to accelerate a car towards a crowd and deliberately crash into them with the intention of causing death or serious injury.
Indoctrination by hate leads to some committing such vile crimes. It's not just those purporting to be Muslims who can commit unspeakable horrors, as we saw in Virginia this weekend.
If we want an example closer to home of people using historical events to justify aggression and hate and violence now, look at Northern Ireland and the battles over flags and marches and the naming of cities ((Londonderry/Derry) and 17th century battles that most of the rest of the country had barely heard of.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
No, I'm prepared to say Nazism and Islamism are equally vile, but one is more of a threat to us than the other: Islamism. We need to man up and expel.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
That Nadiya can piss off. She nearly gave me diabetes just watching her Great British food tour.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
Driving at rival political protestors is sick and inexcusable terrorism. Driving at little girls eating a meal is worse.
Early indications seem to point to a sick individual, not terrorism. This from the BBC...
"According to RTL radio, the driver, 39, told police he had wanted to kill himself and had weapons in the car. However, the incident is not being treated as a terror attack, it adds."
Why have weapons in the car if not terrorism? "Not being treated as a terror attack" is first response to almost all terror attacks.
His army career was only 4 months, suggesting unsatisfactory performance for some reason. Mental illness and drug abuse would not surprise me. He came from the centre of the US drug belt.Terrorists are often from this sort of drifting background as we have seen on a number of occasions.
" ...recalled Fields had wanted to join the army after graduating but had been turned down because the teenager had been prescribed medicine for a psychotic disorder.’
we read that Mr Weimer also mentioned that Fields had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been prescribed an anti-psychotic medication as a result. "
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
Driving at rival political protestors is sick and inexcusable terrorism. Driving at little girls eating a meal is worse.
Early indications seem to point to a sick individual, not terrorism. This from the BBC...
"According to RTL radio, the driver, 39, told police he had wanted to kill himself and had weapons in the car. However, the incident is not being treated as a terror attack, it adds."
That's a very odd - and inefficient - way to commit suicide. RIP for the poor child. An awful incident, whatever its cause.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
No, I'm prepared to say Nazism and Islamism are equally vile, but one is more of a threat to us than the other: Islamism. We need to man up and expel.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
That Nadiya can piss off. She nearly gave me diabetes just watching her Great British food tour.
Forgive me, but weren't you the guy who claimed the official Alexis Jay report on the Rotherham rapes was a total invention, and there could only have been a few victims. As I recall, Tyson vigorously agreed with you.
After Telford, Oxford, Wycombe, Plymouth, Peterborough, Aylesbury, Bristol, Rochdale, Manchester, and Newcastle (and many many dozens of others) presumably you now admit that your so-called opinion was a great big bucket of shit.
I think the 'democrats' idea has legs. The guy chapman is simply fronting an expeditionary mission. Brexiteers are getting angry which is giving him publicity.
Just got voting papers through for the labour conference arrangements committee elections. The 'left' slate has 200+ nominations, I assume from CLP's. the right/moderate slate has about 70. The left now basically control the labour party. Expect motions on nuclear disarmanent etc.
Similarly the conservative party are controlled by Brexiteers. Hard to see what place there is for liberal remainers.
There has to be a new centre party, although managing the massive diversity of opinion would be very challenging.
The left is better-organised, but winning CLP nominations doesn't always deliver votes. However, I think there's clearly a mood in the party to let the left have a go, within reason. Many of the members who seemed to be centrists are in fact "win first" people, who opposed Corbyn because they felt he couldn't win, not because they objected to left-wing policies per se. Now it appears that he has a fair chance to win, they're not inclined to undermine him.
Conversely, though, the left are not being especially rampant about it - there is no serious support for deselections, nobody serious is proposing withdrawal from NATO, abolition of the monarchy, etc., and I'm not aware of a big push on disarmament either They'll settle for a fair chance to implement something like the 2017 manifesto.
Interesting - I agree with this. Certainly a lot of people I know have pivoted towards the left after the 2017 election result. But then again, these are older (ie pre 2015) members. I assume that most of the newer members were inspired by Corbyn and more likely to be leaning towards the left, if they vote at all in these internal party elections.
Corbyn needs to think of something better to say about Brexit if he wants to hold on to the young people that voted labour last time. It's going to be a big problem for Labour if there is another party who manage to look exciting, and have a more explictly pro EU line, (and are more credible than the liberal democrats).
Well, you may be right. But the GOP could only impeach him with Democrat support. Whilst I agree it would be hard to see how the Dems could avoid supporting that, I find it hard to believe that any party would force the impeachment of their own President. Alternatively, the GOP could lean on Trump behind the scenes to resign. Trouble is, Trump would be completely impervious to any such pressure.
No, I think he's POTUS until 2020, when he will return to his business empire whilst mouthing-off endlessly about how he has Made America Great Again.
In all seriousness, the only scenario where I can see him resigning is if his behaviour as President starts damaging his business empire significantly. It's already taken a few knocks, but if it were threatened with unviability he might well walk. His business is more precious to him than anything (including his wives, to judge from the way he treats them) and if that were threatened he would I think vanish quickly.
But equally I don't think that is an especially likely scenario.
He's made millions from becoming president. It's been a shot to the arm of his business. The american tax payer pays him huge amounts to rent space at trump tower and Mar a largo for the secret service.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
No, I'm prepared to say Nazism and Islamism are equally vile, but one is more of a threat to us than the other: Islamism. We need to man up and expel.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
That Nadiya can piss off. She nearly gave me diabetes just watching her Great British food tour.
Forgive me, but weren't you the guy who claimed the official Alexis Jay report on the Rotherham rapes was a total invention, and there could only have been a few victims. As I recall, Tyson vigorously agreed with you.
After Telford, Oxford, Wycombe, Plymouth, Peterborough, Aylesbury, Bristol, Rochdale, Manchester, and Newcastle (and many many dozens of others) presumably you now admit that your so-called opinion was a great big bucket of shit.
No, you are misrepresenting me.
Nope, it was you. Loathsome.
It is not me who boasts here of their experiences in Thai brothels, but you have never seen the similarity between sex trafficking of young girls there for middle aged Western men and the similar events in Rotherham.
We have had this discussion a number of times over the years. I do not particularly want to bore others with it again.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
Driving at rival political protestors is sick and inexcusable terrorism. Driving at little girls eating a meal is worse.
Early indications seem to point to a sick individual, not terrorism. This from the BBC...
"According to RTL radio, the driver, 39, told police he had wanted to kill himself and had weapons in the car. However, the incident is not being treated as a terror attack, it adds."
That's a very odd - and inefficient - way to commit suicide. RIP for the poor child. An awful incident, whatever its cause.
Awful. I've had mental health problems in the past, and I can fully understand how someone could feel they had no choice but to take their own life - but I just can't understand how anyone, no matter how ill they are, could think innocent children are acceptable as "collateral damage".
1. Given the referendum result, how does any party or group wanting to put a halt to Brexit, gain the necessary democratic legitimacy to enact such a policy?
2. How does such a decision get agreed with the rest of the EU? Is it cancellation of Article 50 so that Britain remains on the same terms as before (minus Cameron's deal) or is it on some new basis?
3. And if the latter, does that require approval by voters?
Thank f**k for an intelligent question: we are this close to GeoffM suing the counterprotestors for clogging the car's grill with bits of flesh. Anyhoo, let's go thru this:
"1. Given the referendum result, how does any party or group wanting to put a halt to Brexit, gain the necessary democratic legitimacy to enact such a policy?".
Technically this can be done via Parliament (it being a representative democracy) but I can't recommend that with a straight face. So it would require a second referendum. A second referendum would require a second deal improved sufficiently to win the public vote. To get a second deal, it would have to be sought by the UK and offered by the EU27. As the UK are not asking for a second deal and the EU27 are not offering a second deal, this is a non inconsiderable difficulty...
"2. How does such a decision get agreed with the rest of the EU? Is it cancellation of Article 50 so that Britain remains on the same terms as before (minus Cameron's deal) or is it on some new basis?"
I don't know, but we can use the 2008 and 2009 Ireland referendums as a model. In that case the first referendum was lost, the Irish Government asked for some clarification and that was given threefold[1] thus: 1) A Decision of the EC27 (the then-27 heads of government individually) 2) A Declaration of the European Council (the then-27 heads of government collectively) 3) A Declaration by Ireland
These followed a European Summit and provided a) guarantees regarding things like Irish neutrality and b) a framework via which they either were or would be given legal force.
If a new deal was obtained then this would be the method by which it would be defined and agreed. Revocation of Article 50 would I think be done by a similar method.
"3. And if the latter, does that require approval by voters?"
If you mean approval by the European voters, then I think not (see point 2): it would be done at national and European level. If you mean approval by the UK voters, then I would imagine another referendum would be in order.
But there is an air of unreality to this discussion. The steps above would require both parties to see a deal and enough time to do it in. The former is nonexistent and the latter is rapidly running out. I don't think it'll happen.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
No, I'm prepared to say Nazism and Islamism are equally vile, but one is more of a threat to us than the other: Islamism. We need to man up and expel.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
That Nadiya can piss off. She nearly gave me diabetes just watching her Great British food tour.
Forgive me, but weren't you the guy who claimed the official Alexis Jay report on the Rotherham rapes was a total invention, and there could only have been a few victims. As I recall, Tyson vigorously agreed with you.
After Telford, Oxford, Wycombe, Plymouth, Peterborough, Aylesbury, Bristol, Rochdale, Manchester, and Newcastle (and many many dozens of others) presumably you now admit that your so-called opinion was a great big bucket of shit.
Just to give an impression how these things seem to have evolved over the last 30 or so years, have a look at this report of an attempted NSPA demo at Skokie Illinois* in 1978. It is a fair description I think. I was there.
* Possibly the second biggest Jewish community in the USA.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
No, I'm prepared to say Nazism and Islamism are equally vile, but one is more of a threat to us than the other: Islamism. We need to man up and expel.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
That Nadiya can piss off. She nearly gave me diabetes just watching her Great British food tour.
Forgive me, but weren't you the guy who claimed the official Alexis Jay report on the Rotherham rapes was a total invention, and there could only have been a few victims. As I recall, Tyson vigorously agreed with you.
After Telford, Oxford, Wycombe, Plymouth, Peterborough, Aylesbury, Bristol, Rochdale, Manchester, and Newcastle (and many many dozens of others) presumably you now admit that your so-called opinion was a great big bucket of shit.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
Driving at rival political protestors is sick and inexcusable terrorism. Driving at little girls eating a meal is worse.
Early indications seem to point to a sick individual, not terrorism. This from the BBC...
"According to RTL radio, the driver, 39, told police he had wanted to kill himself and had weapons in the car. However, the incident is not being treated as a terror attack, it adds."
That's a very odd - and inefficient - way to commit suicide. RIP for the poor child. An awful incident, whatever its cause.
I had a similar case where a woman drove into another car at 100 mph, in an effort to commit suicide. Astonishingly, everybody survived (including a baby) albeit with loads of broken bones.
Hitchens is terrible on TV. In fact, he's just terrible. Incoherent, ranty, silly, eerie, very smart but weirdly stupid, and totally unhinged by the shadow of his more famous, more charming, better looking and more charismatic brother, who was just as daft but did it all in a wittier way. Avoid.
Hitchens is terrible on TV. In fact, he's just terrible. Incoherent, ranty, silly, eerie, very smart but weirdly stupid, and totally unhinged by the shadow of his more famous, more charming, better looking and more charismatic brother, who was just as daft but did it all in a wittier way. Avoid.
1. Given the referendum result, how does any party or group wanting to put a halt to Brexit, gain the necessary democratic legitimacy to enact such a policy?
2. How does such a decision get agreed with the rest of the EU? Is it cancellation of Article 50 so that Britain remains on the same terms as before (minus Cameron's deal) or is it on some new basis?
3. And if the latter, does that require approval by voters?
Thank f**k for an intelligent question:
Anyhoo, let's go thru this:
"1. Given the referendum result, how does any party or group wanting to put a halt to Brexit, gain the necessary democratic legitimacy to enact such a policy?".
Technically this can be done via Parliament (it being a representative democracy) but I can't recommend that with a straight face. So it would require a second referendum. A second referendum would require a second deal improved sufficiently to win the public vote. To get a second deal, it would have to be sought by the UK and offered by the EU27. As the UK are not asking for a second deal and the EU27 are not offering a second deal, this is a non inconsiderable difficulty...
"2. How does such a decision get agreed with the rest of the EU? Is it cancellation of Article 50 so that Britain remains on the same terms as before (minus Cameron's deal) or is it on some new basis?"
I don't know, but we can use the 2008 and 2009 Ireland referendums as a model. In that case the first referendum was lost, the Irish Government asked for some clarification and that was given threefold[1] thus: 1) A Decision of the EC27 (the then-27 heads of government individually) 2) A Declaration of the European Council (the then-27 heads of government collectively) 3) A Declaration by Ireland
These followed a European Summit and provided a) guarantees regarding things like Irish neutrality and b) a framework via which they either were or would be given legal force.
If a new deal was obtained then this would be the method by which it would be defined and agreed. Revocation of Article 50 would I think be done by a similar method.
"3. And if the latter, does that require approval by voters?"
If you mean approval by the European voters, then I think not (see point 2): it would be done at national and European level. If you mean approval by the UK voters, then I would imagine another referendum would be in order.
But there is an air of unreality to this discussion. The steps above would require both parties to see a deal and enough time to do it in. The former is nonexistent and the latter is rapidly running out. I don't think it'll happen.
"2. How does such a decision get agreed with the rest of the EU? Is it cancellation of Article 50 so that Britain remains on the same terms as before (minus Cameron's deal) or is it on some new basis?"
I don't know, but we can use the 2008 and 2009 Ireland referendums as a model. In that case the first referendum was lost, the Irish Government asked for some clarification and that was given threefold[1] thus: 1) A Decision of the EC27 (the then-27 heads of government individually) 2) A Declaration of the European Council (the then-27 heads of government collectively) 3) A Declaration by Ireland
These followed a European Summit and provided a) guarantees regarding things like Irish neutrality and b) a framework via which they either were or would be given legal force.
If a new deal was obtained then this would be the method by which it would be defined and agreed. Revocation of Article 50 would I think be done by a similar method.
[snip]
You make some good points. On this specific point, the precedent of the Ireland referendums doesn't really work, because the default (in the absence of a rethink) in that case was no change. In this case, the default is a crash-out, disastrous for both sides.
I guess they see a distinction between "the" Customs Union, and "a" Customs Union (which is technically new and different, but replicates virtually all of the arrangements).
Maybe next we'll have a suggestion that the UK stays in "a" European Union rather than "the" European Union.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
No, I'm prepared to say Nazism and Islamism are equally vile, but one is more of a threat to us than the other: Islamism. We need to man up and expel.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
That Nadiya can piss off. She nearly gave me diabetes just watching her Great British food tour.
Forgive me, but weren't you the guy who claimed the official Alexis Jay report on the Rotherham rapes was a total invention, and there could only have been a few victims. As I recall, Tyson vigorously agreed with you.
After Telford, Oxford, Wycombe, Plymouth, Peterborough, Aylesbury, Bristol, Rochdale, Manchester, and Newcastle (and many many dozens of others) presumably you now admit that your so-called opinion was a great big bucket of shit.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
Driving at rival political protestors is sick and inexcusable terrorism. Driving at little girls eating a meal is worse.
Early indications seem to point to a sick individual, not terrorism. This from the BBC...
"According to RTL radio, the driver, 39, told police he had wanted to kill himself and had weapons in the car. However, the incident is not being treated as a terror attack, it adds."
That's a very odd - and inefficient - way to commit suicide. RIP for the poor child. An awful incident, whatever its cause.
I had a similar case where a woman drove into another car at 100 mph, in an effort to commit suicide. Astonishingly, everybody survived (including a baby) albeit with loads of broken bones.
Awful, awful.
The terrible thing about Islamism is that we find ourselves "hoping" that this ghastly murder is "just" some grotesque suicide bid
Deeply sad.
The thing is Sean, by getting so worked up about Islamic terrorism, you are doing exactly what they want you to do. Much better to keep a sense of proportion...
How many people killed and injured by terrorism in the UK? How many killed or injured by alcohol/cars/pollution/drugs? (take your pick).
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
No, I'm prepared to say Nazism and Islamism are equally vile, but one is more of a threat to us than the other: Islamism. We need to man up and expel.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
That Nadiya can piss off. She nearly gave me diabetes just watching her Great British food tour.
Forgive me, but weren't you the guy who claimed the official Alexis Jay report on the Rotherham rapes was a total invention, and there could only have been a few victims. As I recall, Tyson vigorously agreed with you.
After Telford, Oxford, Wycombe, Plymouth, Peterborough, Aylesbury, Bristol, Rochdale, Manchester, and Newcastle (and many many dozens of others) presumably you now admit that your so-called opinion was a great big bucket of shit.
No, you are misrepresenting me.
This conversation is now closed
Why? He's lying.
Because I say so and it is my site.
Yet you delete my posts and not his?
You created a fabulous site and I have made many good friends here. But this is enough. All life death doth end and each day dies with sleep.
I shall go and not return.
Un po di calma, Sean. You are one of the good things here. But it is Mike's site and repetitious arguments between posters are no good for anyone.
BTW I enjoyed your article in the Times about Ticino though - as a financial investigator - I have a rather jaundiced view of what goes on in its financial institutions.
I guess they see a distinction between "the" Customs Union, and "a" Customs Union (which is technically new and different, but replicates virtually all of the arrangements).
Maybe next we'll have a suggestion that the UK stays in "a" European Union rather than "the" European Union.
Actually that is a genuine distinction - Turkey is not in the EU customs union, but it is in a customs union with the EU (for most goods).
I guess they see a distinction between "the" Customs Union, and "a" Customs Union (which is technically new and different, but replicates virtually all of the arrangements).
Maybe next we'll have a suggestion that the UK stays in "a" European Union rather than "the" European Union.
Actually that is genuine distinction - Turkey is not in the EU customs union, but it is in a customs union with the EU (for most goods).
I guess they see a distinction between "the" Customs Union, and "a" Customs Union (which is technically new and different, but replicates virtually all of the arrangements).
Maybe next we'll have a suggestion that the UK stays in "a" European Union rather than "the" European Union.
Actually that is genuine distinction - Turkey is not in the EU customs union, but it is in a customs union with the EU (for most goods).
I know that it's technically a separate thing, but, as far as I understand it, the Customs Union that Turkey is part of works in pretty much exactly the same way and has exactly the same rules as the EU Customs Union, no?
I tell you what, if the Democrats were formed as a party I'd be seriously tempted to tell opinion pollsters that I intended to vote for them, just to get some momentum behind them and shake up the current Brexit narrative.
1. Given the referendum result, how does any party or group wanting to put a halt to Brexit, gain the necessary democratic legitimacy to enact such a policy?
2. How does such a decision get agreed with the rest of the EU? Is it cancellation of Article 50 so that Britain remains on the same terms as before (minus Cameron's deal) or is it on some new basis?
3. And if the latter, does that require approval by voters?
I can understand all the arguments put forward that Brexit is more complicated and damaging than thought, that our government is proving itself incompetent or has drawn unnecessary red lines etc. But what I don't understand is how those making such arguments propose to achieve what they want and get the necessary democratic backing for it.
That is exactly the point. There is no mechanism. The course has been set, for all practical purposes, since the referendum, and since the invocation of Article 50 it is also set in legal terms. It really is bizarre that so much effort is going into discussion of quality of the hinges on the stable door.
Is that right, though?
Suppose Parliament passes legislation revoking Article 50. Suppose the government sends a letter to the EU saying that it is withdrawing its previous letter. What then happens?
This may all be hugely impractical, politically and in every other way. But those who are advocating the cancellation of Brexit must have some idea of how they would propose to do it. Surely?
The EU say "okay. These are the terms"
On what basis? If Article 50 has been revoked and the letter withdrawn and it is before March 2019, why do we not remain on the same basis as we're currently a member?
There's nothing in the treaties that says it can be withdrawn. in the EU everything has its price, so it can be fixed
1. Given the referendum result, how does any party or group wanting to put a halt to Brexit, gain the necessary democratic legitimacy to enact such a policy?
2. How does such a decision get agreed with the rest of the EU? Is it cancellation of Article 50 so that Britain remains on the same terms as before (minus Cameron's deal) or is it on some new basis?
3. And if the latter, does that require approval by voters?
I can understand all the arguments put forward that Brexit is more complicated and damaging than thought, that our government is proving itself incompetent or has drawn unnecessary red lines etc. But what I don't understand is how those making such arguments propose to achieve what they want and get the necessary democratic backing for it.
That is exactly the point. There is no mechanism. The course has been set, for all practical purposes, since the referendum, and since the invocation of Article 50 it is also set in legal terms. It really is bizarre that so much effort is going into discussion of quality of the hinges on the stable door.
Is that right, though?
Suppose Parliament passes legislation revoking Article 50. Suppose the government sends a letter to the EU saying that it is withdrawing its previous letter. What then happens?
This may all be hugely impractical, politically and in every other way. But those who are advocating the cancellation of Brexit must have some idea of how they would propose to do it. Surely?
The EU say "okay. These are the terms"
On what basis? If Article 50 has been revoked and the letter withdrawn and it is before March 2019, why do we not remain on the same basis as we're currently a member?
There's nothing in the treaties that says it can be withdrawn. in the EU everything has its price, so it can be fixed
"2. How does such a decision get agreed with the rest of the EU? Is it cancellation of Article 50 so that Britain remains on the same terms as before (minus Cameron's deal) or is it on some new basis?"
I don't know, but we can use the 2008 and 2009 Ireland referendums as a model. In that case the first referendum was lost, the Irish Government asked for some clarification and that was given threefold[1] thus: 1) A Decision of the EC27 (the then-27 heads of government individually) 2) A Declaration of the European Council (the then-27 heads of government collectively) 3) A Declaration by Ireland
These followed a European Summit and provided a) guarantees regarding things like Irish neutrality and b) a framework via which they either were or would be given legal force.
If a new deal was obtained then this would be the method by which it would be defined and agreed. Revocation of Article 50 would I think be done by a similar method.
[snip]
You make some good points. On this specific point, the precedent of the Ireland referendums doesn't really work, because the default (in the absence of a rethink) in that case was no change. In this case, the default is a crash-out, disastrous for both sides.
I know, which was why I used the word "model" instead of "precedent". I assume they would take a similar approach this time. I also assume a Commission-only approach would not be enough and getting things thru the combined Parliaments would be too risky. But this is piling assumption upon assumption so I may well be wrong.
I tell you what, if the Democrats were formed as a party I'd be seriously tempted to tell opinion pollsters that I intended to vote for them, just to get some momentum behind them and shake up the current Brexit narrative.
Nice idea.
But you won't actually have to wait for it to be formed 'cos sure as hell the pollsters will be asking the question hypothetically in coming days and weeks anyway... which could add to the dynamic!
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
No, I'm prepared to say Nazism and Islamism are equally vile, but one is more of a threat to us than the other: Islamism. We need to man up and expel.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
That Nadiya can piss off. She nearly gave me diabetes just watching her Great British food tour.
Forgive me, et of shit.
No, you are misrepresenting me.
This conversation is now closed
Why? He's lying.
Because I say so and it is my site.
Yet you delete my posts and not his?
You created a fabulous site and I have made many good friends here. But this is enough. All life death doth end and each day dies with sleep.
I shall go and not return.
Un po di calma, Sean. You are one of the good things here. But it is Mike's site and repetitious arguments between posters are no good for anyone.
BTW I enjoyed your article in the Times about Ticino though - as a financial investigator - I have a rather jaundiced view of what goes on in its financial institutions.
Whatever, who gives a tiny atomic fuck, I post here once a month, now. This site is DEADIO. All the fun posters have either been banned or have fallen off cliffs, or - like me - actually and properly flounced.
I shall make my very very last comment, rather fittingly, in the form of a vulgar boast. I am now officially as famous, or at least equivalent, to Charlotte Bronte and J K Rowling (according to The Times)
Whatever, who gives a tiny atomic fuck, I post here once a month, now. This site is DEADIO. All the fun posters have either been banned or have fallen off cliffs, or - like me - actually and properly flounced.
I shall make my very very last comment, rather fittingly, in the form of a vulgar boast. I am now officially as famous, or at least equivalent, to Charlotte Bronte and J K Rowling (according to The Times)
I know, which was why I used the word "model" instead of "precedent". I assume they would take a similar approach this time. I also assume a Commission-only approach would not be enough and getting things thru the combined Parliaments would be too risky. But this is piling assumption upon assumption so I may well be wrong.
Yes, I think the legal and logistical obstacles, in terms of getting agreement from 27 countries plus various rag-tag parliaments, would be insurmountable given the timescale.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
No, I'm prepared to say Nazism and Islamism are equally vile, but one is more of a threat to us than the other: Islamism. We need to man up and expel.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
That Nadiya can piss off. She nearly gave me diabetes just watching her Great British food tour.
Forgive me, et of shit.
No, you are misrepresenting me.
This conversation is now closed
Why? He's lying.
Because I say so and it is my site.
Yet you delete my posts and not his?
You created a fabulous site and I have made many good friends here. But this is enough. All life death doth end and each day dies with sleep.
I shall go and not return.
Un po di calma, Sean. You are one of the good things here. But it is Mike's site and repetitious arguments between posters are no good for anyone.
BTW I enjoyed your article in the Times about Ticino though - as a financial investigator - I have a rather jaundiced view of what goes on in its financial institutions.
Whatever, who gives a tiny atomic fuck, I post here once a month, now. This site is DEADIO. All the fun posters have either been banned or have fallen off cliffs, or - like me - actually and properly flounced.
I shall make my very very last comment, rather fittingly, in the form of a vulgar boast. I am now officially as famous, or at least equivalent, to Charlotte Bronte and J K Rowling (according to The Times)
Theresa first leader to increase government party vote by 5% for third term since 1066!!!
Statistics never lie of course but speaking of 1066, Harold's score that year was played two, won one, lost one. So not too bad overall for his first season as king.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
It sounds similar in scope and intent to the Nazi attack, and equally nasty. I'm inclined to treat both as vile individuals rather than draw general conclusions.
No, I'm prepared to say Nazism and Islamism are equally vile, but one is more of a threat to us than the other: Islamism. We need to man up and expel.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
That Nadiya can piss off. She nearly gave me diabetes just watching her Great British food tour.
Forgive me, et of shit.
No, you are misrepresenting me.
This conversation is now closed
Why? He's lying.
Because I say so and it is my site.
Yet you delete my posts and not his?
You created a fabulous site and I have made many good friends here. But this is enough. All life death doth end and each day dies with sleep.
I shall go and not return.
Un po di calma, Sean. You are one of the good things here. But it is Mike's site and repetitious arguments between posters are no good for anyone.
BTW I enjoyed your article in the Times about Ticino though - as a financial investigator - I have a rather jaundiced view of what goes on in its financial institutions.
Whatever, who gives a tiny atomic fuck, I post here once a month, now. This site is DEADIO. All the fun posters have either been banned or have fallen off cliffs, or - like me - actually and properly flounced.
I shall make my very very last comment, rather fittingly, in the form of a vulgar boast. I am now officially as famous, or at least equivalent, to Charlotte Bronte and J K Rowling (according to The Times)
If you strip out some of the detail, in essence there is a lot of similarity between the Brexit referendum and the Greek referendum in terms of the nature of the relationship between the electorate of a single member state and the EU.
In both cases from the EU's perspective it was a case of democracy being used as a weapon against the other member states - something that cannot be allowed to stand because it would ultimately make the EU itself untenable. May explicitly called for a mandate to 'strengthen her hand'. The has a duty to call the bluff of any government that tries to use this approach to extract special conditions and all the more so if this is in the context of an exit negotiation which could potentially leave a non member in a more privileged position than other member states.
The UK is not trying to use the referendum to extract better terms of membership from the EU. The UK is seceding.
Greece wanted both to remain members of the Euro, and to have its debts written off.
Indeed: Tsipras explicitly said that Germany would be so desperate to keep the Eurozone together that he could get debts written off and no austerity.
How can you slowly drive a car, carefully and deliberately, at a restaurant terrace, killing an eight year old girl? And potentially others?
This is a worldwide mental illness.
.
Expel who? How do you decide who needs to be expelled? And to where?
That Nadiya can piss off. She nearly gave me diabetes just watching her Great British food tour.
Forgive me, et of shit.
No, you are misrepresenting me.
This conversation is now closed
Why? He's lying.
Because I say so and it is my site.
each day dies with sleep.
I shall go and not return.
Un po di calma, Sean. You are one of the good things here. But it is Mike's site and repetitious arguments between posters are no good for anyone.
BTW I enjoyed your article in the Times about Ticino though - as a financial investigator - I have a rather jaundiced view of what goes on in its financial institutions.
Whatever, who gives a tiny atomic fuck, I post here once a month, now. This site is DEADIO. All the fun posters have either been banned or have fallen off cliffs, or - like me - actually and properly flounced.
I shall make my very very last comment, rather fittingly, in the form of a vulgar boast. I am now officially as famous, or at least equivalent, to Charlotte Bronte and J K Rowling (according to The Times)
Surely the jury should be allowed to read into it whatever they like? Just as if I wished to wear a balaclava to court.
I was more concerned over how gangs of Muslims seem to want to commit terror attacks against U.K. Institutions all the time, but everyone has their priorities!
Comments
2. This depends to a large extent on timing. If we seek to reverse Brexit well within the Article 50 process, it's possible to see how the EU27 could be persuaded to allow a revocation of Article 50, otherwise it would be through a new accession treaty that gave us essentially the same position minus the Euro opt out and rebate. The position on Schengen is more subtle.
3. Yes, in practice I think the choice for voters will be hard Brexit or hard Remain.
A friend got made redundant from a high-tech job and was out of work for some time. He signed on (had a family to support), but was offered a no-skilled job after an interview. He refused it, and got his money stopped as a result. His reasoning was that the jobs he was being interviewed for were scarcely worth the bother, and he could use the time up-skilling and looking for a better job.
I'm glad to say he soon got one, and has helped make the country a lot of money in the years since.
I'm not saying the system's wrong, or complaining about it. It's just that the key to remaining on JSA might be to be unskilled enough never to be offered the jobs you're searching (apply?) for, with no incentive to upskill.
Anyone know if this is right?
Trump has a wig, Corbyn does not?
A few years back a ship got stuck in the River Nene and broke in three as the tide ebbed. We went to see it (along with most of Norfolk, or so it seemed):
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/B9DKCW/the-cargo-ship-lagik-wrecked-in-the-river-nene-at-sutton-bridge-december-B9DKCW.jpg
It will be the GOP that gets rid of him and I should think 35% is about the point where they say enough is enough.
Do I hear murmurings of 'How?' I doubt the mechanism will be lacking if there is the political will, and at below 35%, I reckon there will be no shortage of will.
Just got voting papers through for the labour conference arrangements committee elections. The 'left' slate has 200+ nominations, I assume from CLP's. the right/moderate slate has about 70. The left now basically control the labour party. Expect motions on nuclear disarmanent etc.
Similarly the conservative party are controlled by Brexiteers. Hard to see what place there is for liberal remainers.
There has to be a new centre party, although managing the massive diversity of opinion would be very challenging.
In both cases from the EU's perspective it was a case of democracy being used as a weapon against the other member states - something that cannot be allowed to stand because it would ultimately make the EU itself untenable. May explicitly called for a mandate to 'strengthen her hand'. The has a duty to call the bluff of any government that tries to use this approach to extract special conditions and all the more so if this is in the context of an exit negotiation which could potentially leave a non member in a more privileged position than other member states.
In practice, in relation to 2 it depends on whether the deed is done well before March 2019 or not. Remaining may be an easier decision to sell than rejoining on radically different terms.
https://twitter.com/clarkemicah/status/897080644806868993
No, I think he's POTUS until 2020, when he will return to his business empire whilst mouthing-off endlessly about how he has Made America Great Again.
Corbyn makes jam, Trump jams things?
(Incidentally I'm not sure I agree Corbyn is principled. But that is a very long argument for a different time and place.)
Greece wanted both to remain members of the Euro, and to have its debts written off.
But equally I don't think that is an especially likely scenario.
I just remember watching him squirm over use of Trident on the Leaders' Debate (or was it the Leaders' Interviews by Dimbleby?) Anybody less principled would have just said "of course I'll use it if I have to" even though he clearly has no intention of so doing. But he couldn't say it.
After Dr Tristram Hunt, a man who memorably crossed a union picket line while Shadow Secretary of State for education to deliver a lecture on Marxism and its significance in he growth of working class solidarity movements in the late nineteenth century.
He appeared to suggest that imprisoning 2 million more people for drug possession would solve societies ills. It is, of course, a view.
With that, I am off to bed. Good night all.
Conversely, though, the left are not being especially rampant about it - there is no serious support for deselections, nobody serious is proposing withdrawal from NATO, abolition of the monarchy, etc., and I'm not aware of a big push on disarmament either They'll settle for a fair chance to implement something like the 2017 manifesto.
Driving at little girls eating a meal is worse.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/897194371661148160
Early indications seem to point to a sick individual, not terrorism. This from the BBC...
"According to RTL radio, the driver, 39, told police he had wanted to kill himself and had weapons in the car.
However, the incident is not being treated as a terror attack, it adds."
Indoctrination by hate leads to some committing such vile crimes. It's not just those purporting to be Muslims who can commit unspeakable horrors, as we saw in Virginia this weekend.
If we want an example closer to home of people using historical events to justify aggression and hate and violence now, look at Northern Ireland and the battles over flags and marches and the naming of cities ((Londonderry/Derry) and 17th century battles that most of the rest of the country had barely heard of.
we read that Mr Weimer also mentioned that Fields had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been prescribed an anti-psychotic medication as a result. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_(UK,_1989)
Corbyn needs to think of something better to say about Brexit if he wants to hold on to the young people that voted labour last time. It's going to be a big problem for Labour if there is another party who manage to look exciting, and have a more explictly pro EU line, (and are more credible than the liberal democrats).
We have had this discussion a number of times over the years. I do not particularly want to bore others with it again.
“He tried to kill himself yesterday and decided to try again like this today,” the source told the paper.
"1. Given the referendum result, how does any party or group wanting to put a halt to Brexit, gain the necessary democratic legitimacy to enact such a policy?".
Technically this can be done via Parliament (it being a representative democracy) but I can't recommend that with a straight face. So it would require a second referendum. A second referendum would require a second deal improved sufficiently to win the public vote. To get a second deal, it would have to be sought by the UK and offered by the EU27. As the UK are not asking for a second deal and the EU27 are not offering a second deal, this is a non inconsiderable difficulty...
"2. How does such a decision get agreed with the rest of the EU? Is it cancellation of Article 50 so that Britain remains on the same terms as before (minus Cameron's deal) or is it on some new basis?"
I don't know, but we can use the 2008 and 2009 Ireland referendums as a model. In that case the first referendum was lost, the Irish Government asked for some clarification and that was given threefold[1] thus:
1) A Decision of the EC27 (the then-27 heads of government individually)
2) A Declaration of the European Council (the then-27 heads of government collectively)
3) A Declaration by Ireland
These followed a European Summit and provided a) guarantees regarding things like Irish neutrality and b) a framework via which they either were or would be given legal force.
If a new deal was obtained then this would be the method by which it would be defined and agreed. Revocation of Article 50 would I think be done by a similar method.
"3. And if the latter, does that require approval by voters?"
If you mean approval by the European voters, then I think not (see point 2): it would be done at national and European level. If you mean approval by the UK voters, then I would imagine another referendum would be in order.
But there is an air of unreality to this discussion. The steps above would require both parties to see a deal and enough time to do it in. The former is nonexistent and the latter is rapidly running out. I don't think it'll happen.
NOTES
[1] http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/lisbon-ireland.pdf
Corbyn: Trump comments on Charlottesville 'not enough'
He rejected comparisons with his own comments about violence in Venezuela.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40927317
This is Venezuela where over 120 have known to be have killed....
This conversation is now closed
* Possibly the second biggest Jewish community in the USA.
http://www.jta.org/2013/06/20/news-opinion/the-telegraph/nazis-marching-through-skokie
Because I say so and it is my site.
Will they ever re-open up the connection to Robertsbridge?
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/897206636745547776
Maybe next we'll have a suggestion that the UK stays in "a" European Union rather than "the" European Union.
I shall keep off the subject.
How many people killed and injured by terrorism in the UK? How many killed or injured by alcohol/cars/pollution/drugs? (take your pick).
BTW I enjoyed your article in the Times about Ticino though - as a financial investigator - I have a rather jaundiced view of what goes on in its financial institutions.
Good evening, everyone.
Downside - https://twitter.com/colrichardkemp/status/896321713939648512
She is a natural for TV, that rarity a reality TV star with real talent.
But you won't actually have to wait for it to be formed 'cos sure as hell the pollsters will be asking the question hypothetically in coming days and weeks anyway... which could add to the dynamic!
Thanks for the laughs, the rants (I don't think ever really experienced the Sean Thomas Experience myself) and some very genuinely interesting posts.
Good luck.
2010 2015 2017
3-0
3-0
3-0
Theresa first leader to increase government party vote by 5% for third term since 1066!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-make-public-prince-charless-lobbying-letters-teacher-training-rules-scotland
He was wrong.
As a great goalkeeper once said " Everything is made more complicated by the presence of the opposing team"