"Honestly, we should be focusing on the Nazi enabler in the White House, this is what it means to be Jewish in America in 2017, almost like being a Jew in 1930s Germany."
is, to my best belief & knowledge, (sorry) a mite hysterical.
Am only paraphrasing what a Holocaust survivor said today.
can we have a post on what it's like being christian in Iraq or dont they count ?
Ironically it was great for them when Saddam was in power.
we could always celebrate 70 happy years of Pakistan
A country I know little about, I've spent more days of my life in France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, America, Spain, and a few other countries.
I think I've spent 20 days of my life in Pakistan, 15 of those when I was 2.
And what ?
Is there not oppression there too, is it not studiously ignored why do western values only apply to politicians you dont like ?
That's not what I said.
Clearly you're pissed and as a wise man once told me, never argue with a drunk or a pig.
as sober as an imam TSE
if youre uncomfortable facing the issues then maybe you should ask why
I'm happy to discuss them once you're not engaging in whataboutery.
poor excuse
whataboutery started with a daft post claiming the USA is the same as Nazi Germany
it isnt
Correct. It is more like the Weimar Republic at present...
So where we are this evening, politically, not geographically, I know where I am, I don't really care where anyone else is ?
The Conservative game plan hit me in the face like a wet haddock this evening (and that has happened to me before. You'd be surprised the dealings I've had with wet fish down the years).
Back come Davis, Johnson and Fox with a Treaty and Parliament, which has a gun to its head, has to endorse it because the alternative is to crash out without a Treaty and that will be portrayed as the end of the world as we know it.
There'll probably be a 12-month transitional period to tidy up some loose ends but we will leave the EU on or about 1/4/19.
May retires in the summer of 19 with the grateful thanks of the Party and any "good riddance" kept quiet. The new leader (let's call them X) rallies the Party and over the next 12-18 months the economy is primed with a few tax cuts, a bit of extra borrowing so that by the spring of 2021, the message will be "leaving the EU was the best thing we ever did. Global Britain is moving forward with confidence into the new decade" - you can almost see the posters now.
GE in May 2021 - Conservatives win new majority.
Maybe and it might explain why the 2017 GE was necessary even if the result wasn't.
For those of us not of a Conservative disposition, it all looks chillingly plausible but then so did a landslide in June.
With the passing of the A50 treaty, new options become available - NOT, I emphasise, rejoining the EU but re-negotiating the Treaty. Any party could have as a manifesto commitment something along the lines of "we have left the EU but the Treaty on which we left was inadequate and deficient in these areas (to be listed). We would seek to improve the terms and negotiate a better deal for the United Kingdom". That would be credible.
IF we crash out of the EU without a Treaty, which I don;t consider likely but is plausible, the line can simply be "the Conservatives failed to achieve the best deal for the UK. We will sort out their mess and re-build our economic relationship with the EU".
The problem for now is that we are trapped until 2019 when there will either be an A50 treaty or there won't. The process of leaving cannot and must not be stopped but the terms on which we leave are an entirely different matter and especially so once we've left. There's no reason why a new Government couldn't change the Treaty in key areas if it so wished and had a majority in the Commons to do so.
Ironically the longer T. May stays in the background the more her opponents start shooting themselves in their feet. Wonder when the next polls are due
I'm not sure standing on the deck of Britain's biggest ever warship criticising Trump counts as 'staying in the background':
Doesn't matter in a post truth world. Corbyn's statement will be retweeted by his adoring fans who will believe it. Job done.
I'm sure potential Islamic terrorists are quaking in their boots over our new £3bn pound boat i'm not over sure what problems in the future it will address. We hardly have enough ships to form a viable battle group to enable it to go into a war zone
What are the terrorists going to do about it?
Think "thank goodnes they spent thier money on that"
As it sits in the Med launching air strikes against them?
Its the home grown ones that are the problem, have air strikes solved any conflict in the ME?
I'd say that those in the middle east are a greater concern, as they are destabilising the whole region.
The scary thing about that graph is that there's now almost no overlap between the two groups. Everyone is now either red or blue, donkey or elephant, us or them.
No-one is listening to opposing points of view, purely defending their side and attacking the other almost regardless of facts, which have become merged seamlessly with opinions through one-sides news outlets.
Those who have been mindlessly and hysterically screaming at Trump for 18 months now look like the boy who cried wolf, when there's actually something seriously worth criticising.
It's sadly going to get a lot worse before it gets better, maybe there's room for a party in the middle with sensible attitudes to the first and second amendments, rather than one who want to shut down dissenting opinion and the other who want everyone to own military hardware.
"Honestly, we should be focusing on the Nazi enabler in the White House, this is what it means to be Jewish in America in 2017, almost like being a Jew in 1930s Germany."
is, to my best belief & knowledge, (sorry) a mite hysterical.
Am only paraphrasing what a Holocaust survivor said today.
can we have a post on what it's like being christian in Iraq or dont they count ?
Ironically it was great for them when Saddam was in power.
we could always celebrate 70 happy years of Pakistan
A country I know little about, I've spent more days of my life in France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, America, Spain, and a few other countries.
I think I've spent 20 days of my life in Pakistan, 15 of those when I was 2.
And what ?
Is there not oppression there too, is it not studiously ignored why do western values only apply to politicians you dont like ?
That's not what I said.
Clearly you're pissed and as a wise man once told me, never argue with a drunk or a pig.
as sober as an imam TSE
if youre uncomfortable facing the issues then maybe you should ask why
I'm happy to discuss them once you're not engaging in whataboutery.
poor excuse
whataboutery started with a daft post claiming the USA is the same as Nazi Germany
it isnt
Correct. It is more like the Weimar Republic at present...
The scary thing about that graph is that there's now almost no overlap between the two groups. Everyone is now either red or blue, donkey or elephant, us or them.
No-one is listening to opposing points ofriously worth criticising.
It's sadly going to get a lot worse before it gets better, maybe there's room for a party in the middle with sensible attitudes to the first and second amendments, rather than one who want to shut down dissenting opinion and the other who want everyone to own military hardware.
"Honestly, we should be focusing on the Nazi enabler in the White House, this is what it means to be Jewish in America in 2017, almost like being a Jew in 1930s Germany."
is, to my best belief & knowledge, (sorry) a mite hysterical.
Am only paraphrasing what a Holocaust survivor said today.
can we have a post on what it's like being christian in Iraq or dont they count ?
Ironically it was great for them when Saddam was in power.
we could always celebrate 70 happy years of Pakistan
A country I know little about, I've spent more days of my life in France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, America, Spain, and a few other countries.
I think I've spent 20 days of my life in Pakistan, 15 of those when I was 2.
And what ?
Is there not oppression there too, is it not studiously ignored why do western values only apply to politicians you dont like ?
That's not what I said.
Clearly you're pissed and as a wise man once told me, never argue with a drunk or a pig.
as sober as an imam TSE
if youre uncomfortable facing the issues then maybe you should ask why
I'm happy to discuss them once you're not engaging in whataboutery.
poor excuse
whataboutery started with a daft post claiming the USA is the same as Nazi Germany
it isnt
Correct. It is more like the Weimar Republic at present...
How is this metric measured? Is the 'centre' unmoving?
As Josias Jessop pointed out to me, political division was probably more bitter in the US in the 1960's than now. But, the division was largely within parties, rather than between them. There's now been a big shakeout, so that almost all left-wingers now vote Democratic, and almost all right-wingers now vote Republican, both groups are evenly balanced, and each group views the other as sub-human.
"Honestly, we should be focusing on the Nazi enabler in the White House, this is what it means to be Jewish in America in 2017, almost like being a Jew in 1930s Germany."
is, to my best belief & knowledge, (sorry) a mite hysterical.
Am only paraphrasing what a Holocaust survivor said today.
can we have a post on what it's like being christian in Iraq or dont they count ?
Ironically it was great for them when Saddam was in power.
we could always celebrate 70 happy years of Pakistan
A country I know little about, I've spent more days of my life in France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, America, Spain, and a few other countries.
I think I've spent 20 days of my life in Pakistan, 15 of those when I was 2.
And what ?
Is there not oppression there too, is it not studiously ignored why do western values only apply to politicians you dont like ?
That's not what I said.
Clearly you're pissed and as a wise man once told me, never argue with a drunk or a pig.
as sober as an imam TSE
if youre uncomfortable facing the issues then maybe you should ask why
I'm happy to discuss them once you're not engaging in whataboutery.
poor excuse
whataboutery started with a daft post claiming the USA is the same as Nazi Germany
it isnt
Correct. It is more like the Weimar Republic at present...
The Conservative game plan hit me in the face like a wet haddock this evening (and that has happened to me before. You'd be surprised the dealings I've had with wet fish down the years).
TMI Stodge, TMI...
On the substantive point, you could be right about the treaty but that does rather presuppose the EU are willing to agree one. So far the signs are bad. Aside from a lot of slogans and ridiculous offers they clearly know will be rejected, we've had nothing from them. Moreover, anything they do agree may well be vetoed by the EU Parliament. No treaty is still the default option. If you want to measure its likelihood, track Deutsche Bank's share price - if it recovers to the extent it could withstand the shock of losing the City, they will get much more hardline than they are already. If it still teeters on the brink of ruin, they will be nervous about the Euro and may soft-pedal their approach.
One advantage of calling the election was indeed that it bought more time. However, let's not overthink it. May saw a chance to turn a small, troubled majority into a huge one. That's why she called it, although she then blew it. It was the Harold Wilson option of '66, with the result of a Harold Wilson in '74.
Call me suspicious, but a simple application of "cui bono" tells me that this whole Democrats party nonsense is reverse entrapment designed to finish off the Lib Dems and ensure Brexit.
Call me suspicious, but a simple application of "cui bono" tells me that this whole Democrats party nonsense is reverse entrapment designed to finish off the Lib Dems and ensure Brexit.
It boils down to that or mental breakdown, which is why I've stopped replying to/retweeting him. If it's the former I'll leave him to it, if it's the latter I don't want to make fun of it.
Call me suspicious, but a simple application of "cui bono" tells me that this whole Democrats party nonsense is reverse entrapment designed to finish off the Lib Dems and ensure Brexit.
But why precisely would a former acolyte of George Osborne want to achieve that? He didn't have a damascene conversion at DExEU...
Is he confusing Caesar's failed invasions of 55 and 54 BC, and Claudius' conquest of the south in 43AD?
Because if so he's really horribly confused.
IIRC, a brief civil war between Octavian and Fulvia, Mark Antony's wife.
Well, yes, that was badly phrased wasn't it? I didn't mean to imply, as I accidentally did, that the entire planet sat on its hands from the last day of 42 to the first day of 40 to see if anything vaguely interesting happened in a remote set of damp islands.
But I meant related to Britain. I don't think Octavian cared about the northern outposts of not quite part of the Empire (although TSE may tell me I'm wrong, I know very little about him). So I'm assuming Chapman's getting muddled over dates, or that he's drunk. Or both, of course.
I think these last few hours have put to bed any notion that he is a serious figure. I notice his erstwhile defenders/admirers are conspicuous by their silence. As an aside I do think one or two of them owe some apologies. While what appears to be happening to him is tragic, it's a personal tragedy being turned into a national comedy by Twitter. Which is rather a disturbing thought.
On the subject of bed, that's where I am heading. Good night and sweet dreams to all.
Yep. But think of the poor urchins in the immediate environs who will benefit from the hundreds of millions the bridge would have costed. At least according to one prominent PBer ...
“Can we with a fresh conscience now say that Britain is taking us forward? Can we say that leaving Europe, without our consent, is set to enhance our children’s lives and connect them more constructively to the world of the future?
“Our moment has arrived. We are where we are. And it may be that the bigger unity, the modern union meshing Scotland with Europe and the world, is now a journey Scotland makes alone.
Is he confusing Caesar's failed invasions of 55 and 54 BC, and Claudius' conquest of the south in 43AD?
Because if so he's really horribly confused.
IIRC, a brief civil war between Octavian and Fulvia, Mark Antony's wife.
Well, yes, that was badly phrased wasn't it? I didn't mean to imply, as I accidentally did, that the entire planet sat on its hands from the last day of 42 to the first day of 40 to see if anything vaguely interesting happened in a remote set of damp islands.
But I meant related to Britain. I don't think Octavian cared about the northern outposts of not quite part of the Empire (although TSE may tell me I'm wrong, I know very little about him). So I'm assuming Chapman's getting muddled over dates, or that he's drunk. Or both, of course.
I think these last few hours have put to bed any notion that he is a serious figure. I notice his erstwhile defenders/admirers are conspicuous by their silence. As an aside I do think one or two of them owe some apologies. While what appears to be happening to him is tragic, it's a personal tragedy being turned into a national comedy by Twitter. Which is rather a disturbing thought.
On the subject of bed, that's where I am heading. Good night and sweet dreams to all.
I can only assume James is talking about Mandubracius.
If I were to say since when Britain was European, 41 BC wouldn't be the date I'd be picking
Is he confusing Caesar's failed invasions of 55 and 54 BC, and Claudius' conquest of the south in 43AD?
Because if so he's really horribly confused.
IIRC, a brief civil war between Octavian and Fulvia, Mark Antony's wife.
Well, yes, that was badly phrased wasn't it? I didn't mean to imply, as I accidentally did, that the entire planet sat on its hands from the last day of 42 to the first day of 40 to see if anything vaguely interesting happened in a remote set of damp islands.
But I meant related to Britain. I don't think Octavian cared about the northern outposts of not quite part of the Empire (although TSE may tell me I'm wrong, I know very little about him). So I'm assuming Chapman's getting muddled over dates, or that he's drunk. Or both, of course.
I think these last few hours have put to bed any notion that he is a serious figure. I notice his erstwhile defenders/admirers are conspicuous by their silence. As an aside I do think one or two of them owe some apologies. While what appears to be happening to him is tragic, it's a personal tragedy being turned into a national comedy by Twitter. Which is rather a disturbing thought.
On the subject of bed, that's where I am heading. Good night and sweet dreams to all.
For a Roman in 41 BC, Britain must have been a dismal swamp, though doubtless some merchants found it profitable to trade there.
"Honestly, we should be focusing on the Nazi enabler in the White House, this is what it means to be Jewish in America in 2017, almost like being a Jew in 1930s Germany."
is, to my best belief & knowledge, (sorry) a mite hysterical.
Am only paraphrasing what a Holocaust survivor said today.
can we have a post on what it's like being christian in Iraq or dont they count ?
Ironically it was great for them when Saddam was in power.
we could always celebrate 70 happy years of Pakistan
"Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47 (1948) of 21 April, 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948, 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and 91(1951) of 30 March, 1951, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, "
“Can we with a fresh conscience now say that Britain is taking us forward? Can we say that leaving Europe, without our consent, is set to enhance our children’s lives and connect them more constructively to the world of the future?
“Our moment has arrived. We are where we are. And it may be that the bigger unity, the modern union meshing Scotland with Europe and the world, is now a journey Scotland makes alone.
But, Scots have rallied to Unionism, since the Brexit vote.
On topic, it is amusing, but if Ken Clarke can happily remain a Tory then I'm no expecting any defections to The Democrats.
Plus, as I noted earlier, on the 9th of September, The Manchester Arena re-opens with truly great artists performing, such as Rick Astley, so that's going to be the dominant news story that day.
Honestly, we should be focusing on the Nazi enabler in the White House, this is what it means to be Jewish in America in 2017, almost like being a Jew in 1930s Germany.
I'm a Tory, though one who is inside the tent peeing in.
Someone's got to save the party from the Leadbangers.
Perhaps that person is Leadsom. "Genuinely, as a mother, I would have planned for Brexit to take at least 18 years."
The only question Andrea Leadsom is the answer to is 'Which Tory if they became leader would see the party destroyed'
perhaps ease back on the "TMay is useless compared to her predecessor DCameron" stuff, then? cos that stuff is the likeliest way of ensuring that this time next year you will be vigorously arguing that ALeadsom is useless compared to her predecessor TMay.
The Conservative game plan hit me in the face like a wet haddock this evening.Back come Davis, Johnson and Fox with a Treaty and Parliament, which has a gun to its head, has to endorse it because the alternative is to crash out without a Treaty and that will be portrayed as the end of the world as we know it.
[......Other important points I had to cut out ........]
The problem for now is that we are trapped until 2019 when there will either be an A50 treaty or there won't. The process of leaving cannot and must not be stopped but the terms on which we leave are an entirely different matter and especially so once we've left. There's no reason why a new Government couldn't change the Treaty in key areas if it so wished and had a majority in the Commons to do so.
I don't know if that's the gameplan, but it's not the way the EU are playing it. They have been very on-message so far, our lot have been shambolic and the EU have the better cards anyway. In other words, the way the EU are playing it is almost certainly the way it will be played. The Article 50 talks are in three stages: (1) the stuff the EU wants that it insists will be dealt with first (money, citizens and Ireland); (2) then an outline of our desired destination, which is a preferential trade agreement similar to the Canadian one; and finally (3) the "transition arrangements". Then we Brexit. One of those stages is so much more important to us than the others that the others don't actually matter very much - the so called "transition arrangements", which are actually continuity arrangements. Can goods be exported to the continent without customs procedures that don't exist? are planes certified and insured to fly? etc etc. This will be decided in the final months before Brexit when there will be a big sense of anxiety.
The UK will hastily agree to the EU proposal of time limited access on current terms and payments etc. Then and only then will the lengthy discussions about the free trade agreement. The EU won't have any great sense of urgency about concluding the FTA but they can keep us on a tight leash with the continuity arrangements if they want to. The UK could crash out of the talks but there is no reason for it to do so. They have been structured so the UK agrees to the current stage because it wants the next one. And if it did so, the EU would insist the talks resume from where they left off.
Brexit is a fifteen year or so process. There won't be a single point at which a UK government can say, that's it, we're done. It's more likely to gradually run out of steam. The EU will have proved its point long before.
Is he confusing Caesar's failed invasions of 55 and 54 BC, and Claudius' conquest of the south in 43AD?
Because if so he's really horribly confused.
IIRC, a brief civil war between Octavian and Fulvia, Mark Antony's wife.
Well, yes, that was badly phrased wasn't it? I didn't mean to imply, as I accidentally did, that the entire planet sat on its hands from the last day of 42 to the first day of 40 to see if anything vaguely interesting happened in a remote set of damp islands.
But I meant related to Britain. I don't think Octavian cared about the northern outposts of not quite part of the Empire (although TSE may tell me I'm wrong, I know very little about him). So I'm assuming Chapman's getting muddled over dates, or that he's drunk. Or both, of course.
I think these last few hours have put to bed any notion that he is a serious figure. I notice his erstwhile defenders/admirers are conspicuous by their silence. As an aside I do think one or two of them owe some apologies. While what appears to be happening to him is tragic, it's a personal tragedy being turned into a national comedy by Twitter. Which is rather a disturbing thought.
On the subject of bed, that's where I am heading. Good night and sweet dreams to all.
I can only assume James is talking about Mandubracius.
If I were to say since when Britain was European, 41 BC wouldn't be the date I'd be picking
When we joined Europe is moot, as there was considerable commerce between the Ancient Britons and Romans preceeding conquest.
I would suggest Pelagius as the first British Eurosceptic philosopher.
On topic, it is amusing, but if Ken Clarke can happily remain a Tory then I'm no expecting any defections to The Democrats.
Plus, as I noted earlier, on the 9th of September, The Manchester Arena re-opens with truly great artists performing, such as Rick Astley, so that's going to be the dominant news story that day.
Honestly, we should be focusing on the Nazi enabler in the White House, this is what it means to be Jewish in America in 2017, almost like being a Jew in 1930s Germany.
The Conservative game plan hit me in the face like a wet haddock this evening.Back come Davis, Johnson and Fox with a Treaty and Parliament, which has a gun to its head, has to endorse it because the alternative is to crash out without a Treaty and that will be portrayed as the end of the world as we know it.
[......Other important points I had to cut out ........]
The problem for now is that we are trapped until 2019 when there will either be an A50 treaty or there won't. The process of leaving cannot and must not be stopped but the terms on which we leave are an entirely different matter and especially so once we've left. There's no reason why a new Government couldn't change the Treaty in key areas if it so wished and had a majority in the Commons to do so.
{snippety snip} The EU will have proved its point long before.
“Can we with a fresh conscience now say that Britain is taking us forward? Can we say that leaving Europe, without our consent, is set to enhance our children’s lives and connect them more constructively to the world of the future?
“Our moment has arrived. We are where we are. And it may be that the bigger unity, the modern union meshing Scotland with Europe and the world, is now a journey Scotland makes alone.
So his version of independence is being a province of Germania.
It's not about independence is it though... it's just petty 'anything but the English'.
The Conservative game plan hit me in the face like a wet haddock this evening.Back come Davis, Johnson and Fox with a Treaty and Parliament, which has a gun to its head, has to endorse it because the alternative is to crash out without a Treaty and that will be portrayed as the end of the world as we know it.
[......Other important points I had to cut out ........]
The problem for now is that we are trapped until 2019 when there will either be an A50 treaty or there won't. The process of leaving cannot and must not be stopped but the terms on which we leave are an entirely different matter and especially so once we've left. There's no reason why a new Government couldn't change the Treaty in key areas if it so wished and had a majority in the Commons to do so.
I don't know if that's the gameplan, but it's not the way the EU are playing it. They have been very on-message so far, our lot have been shambolic and the EU have the better cards anyway. In other words, the way the EU are playing it is almost certainly the way it will be played. The Article 50 talks are in three stages: (1) the stuff the EU wants that it insists will be dealt with first (money, citizens and Ireland); (2) then an outline of our desired destination, which is a preferential trade agreement similar to the Canadian one; and finally (3) the "transition arrangements". Then we Brexit. One of those stages is so much more important to us than the others that the others don't actually matter very much - the so called "transition arrangements", which are actually continuity arrangements. Can goods be exported to the continent without customs procedures that don't exist? are planes certified and insured to fly? etc etc. This will be decided in the final months before Brexit when there will be a big sense of anxiety.
The UK will hastily agree to the EU proposal of time limited access on current terms and payments etc. Then and only then will the lengthy discussions about the free trade agreement. The EU won't have any great sense of urgency about concluding the FTA but they can keep us on a tight leash with the continuity arrangements if they want to. The UK could crash out of the talks but there is no reason for it to do so. They have been structured so the UK agrees to the current stage because it wants the next one. And if it did so, the EU would insist the talks resume from where they left off.
Brexit is a fifteen year or so process. There won't be a single point at which a UK government can say, that's it, we're done. It's more likely to gradually run out of steam. The EU will have proved its point long before.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
The Conservative game plan hit me in the face like a wet haddock this evening.Back come Davis, Johnson and Fox with a Treaty and Parliament, which has a gun to its head, has to endorse it because the alternative is to crash out without a Treaty and that will be portrayed as the end of the world as we know it.
[......Other important points I had to cut out ........]
The problem for now is that we are trapped until 2019 when there will either be an A50 treaty or there won't. The process of leaving cannot and must not be stopped but the terms on which we leave are an entirely different matter and especially so once we've left. There's no reason why a new Government couldn't change the Treaty in key areas if it so wished and had a majority in the Commons to do so.
{snippety snip} The EU will have proved its point long before.
What is that "point" to be proved?
That they are the only show in town in Europe. You can leave if you want but you are going to find it seriously tedious. We don't even need to punish you.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
And you thought my 'rogue island' comment was offensive? What a destructive blind alley you are pushing this country down. Shame on you.
The Conservative game plan hit me in the face like a wet haddock this evening.Back come Davis, Johnson and Fox with a Treaty and Parliament, which has a gun to its head, has to endorse it because the alternative is to crash out without a Treaty and that will be portrayed as the end of the world as we know it.
[......Other important points I had to cut out ........]
The problem for now is that we are trapped until 2019 when there will either be an A50 treaty or there won't. The process of leaving cannot and must not be stopped but the terms on which we leave are an entirely different matter and especially so once we've left. There's no reason why a new Government couldn't change the Treaty in key areas if it so wished and had a majority in the Commons to do so.
{snippety snip} The EU will have proved its point long before.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
And you thought my 'rogue island' comment was offensive? What a destructive blind alley you are pushing this country down. Shame on you.
Well that got a response. Lol.
It's supposed to be a club with an exit procedure, but apparently some are suggesting it's Hotel California. Believe you me that is the road to perdition. We voted to leave, try to subsume us into a USE and I cannot imagine that it's going to be sweetness and light. Quite the opposite.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
And you thought my 'rogue island' comment was offensive? What a destructive blind alley you are pushing this country down. Shame on you.
Well that got a response. Lol.
It's supposed to be a club with an exit procedure, but apparently some are suggesting it's Hotel California. Believe you me that is the road to perdition. We voted to leave, try to subsume us into a USE and I cannot imagine that it's going to be sweetness and light. Quite the opposite.
Many Brexiteers seem to envy the people who left Europe in a physical sense to go to America or Australasia. Ultimately that's the only way to be free of European politics if that's what you desire. Britain will always be a part of it, whether in the EU or not.
I don't know if that's the gameplan, but it's not the way the EU are playing it. They have been very on-message so far, our lot have been shambolic and the EU have the better cards anyway. In other words, the way the EU are playing it is almost certainly the way it will be played. The Article 50 talks are in three stages: (1) the stuff the EU wants that it insists will be dealt with first (money, citizens and Ireland); (2) then an outline of our desired destination, which is a preferential trade agreement similar to the Canadian one; and finally (3) the "transition arrangements". Then we Brexit. One of those stages is so much more important to us than the others that the others don't actually matter very much - the so called "transition arrangements", which are actually continuity arrangements. Can goods be exported to the continent without customs procedures that don't exist? are planes certified and insured to fly? etc etc. This will be decided in the final months before Brexit when there will be a big sense of anxiety.
The UK will hastily agree to the EU proposal of time limited access on current terms and payments etc. Then and only then will the lengthy discussions about the free trade agreement. The EU won't have any great sense of urgency about concluding the FTA but they can keep us on a tight leash with the continuity arrangements if they want to. The UK could crash out of the talks but there is no reason for it to do so. They have been structured so the UK agrees to the current stage because it wants the next one. And if it did so, the EU would insist the talks resume from where they left off.
Brexit is a fifteen year or so process. There won't be a single point at which a UK government can say, that's it, we're done. It's more likely to gradually run out of steam. The EU will have proved its point long before.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
The contradictions are ours. We don't have to stick to the process. We can crash out any time, but we won't. Because we want a trade arrangement with the EU. We need continuity. If we crash out of talks we have an absence of an arrangement, not an alternative so we will crash back in again in that case.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
And you thought my 'rogue island' comment was offensive? What a destructive blind alley you are pushing this country down. Shame on you.
Well that got a response. Lol.
It's supposed to be a club with an exit procedure, but apparently some are suggesting it's Hotel California. Believe you me that is the road to perdition. We voted to leave, try to subsume us into a USE and I cannot imagine that it's going to be sweetness and light. Quite the opposite.
Many Brexiteers seem to envy the people who left Europe in a physical sense to go to America or Australasia. Ultimately that's the only way to be free of European politics if that's what you desire. Britain will always be a part of it, whether in the EU or not.
Fair enough, but why not Canada to their USA, rather than Oregon to the rest of the USA?
If we are forced as you seem to wish into a USE the consequences I fear will not be peaceful.
I don't know if that's the gameplan, but it's not the way the EU are playing it. They have been very on-message so far, our lot have been shambolic and the EU have the better cards anyway. In other words, the way the EU are playing it is almost certainly the way it will be played. The Article 50 talks are in three stages: (1) the stuff the EU wants that it insists will be dealt with first (money, citizens and Ireland); (2) then an outline of our desired destination, which is a preferential trade agreement similar to the Canadian one; and finally (3) the "transition arrangements". Then we Brexit. One of those stages is so much more important to us than the others that the others don't actually matter very much - the so called "transition arrangements", which are actually continuity arrangements. Can goods be exported to the continent without customs procedures that don't exist? are planes certified and insured to fly? etc etc. This will be decided in the final months before Brexit when there will be a big sense of anxiety.
The UK will hastily agree to the EU proposal of time limited access on current terms and payments etc. Then and only then will the lengthy discussions about the free trade agreement. The EU won't have any great sense of urgency about concluding the FTA but they can keep us on a tight leash with the continuity arrangements if they want to. The UK could crash out of the talks but there is no reason for it to do so. They have been structured so the UK agrees to the current stage because it wants the next one. And if it did so, the EU would insist the talks resume from where they left off.
Brexit is a fifteen year or so process. There won't be a single point at which a UK government can say, that's it, we're done. It's more likely to gradually run out of steam. The EU will have proved its point long before.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
The contradictions are ours. We don't have to stick to the process. We can crash out any time, but we won't. Because we want a trade arrangement with the EU. We need continuity. If we crash out of talks we have an absence of an arrangement, not an alternative so we will crash back in again in that case.
And at the same time, the EU need a goods agreement with us. Hence the transition will be as short as possible.
The times headline is nonsense. Eu migrants will be able to visit the uk without a visa, but aren't free to just start working, ie just like turks and most of the western world. The wrinkle is they can look for work while visiting, which is exactly the same as a uk citizen visiting canada.
The times headline is nonsense. Eu migrants will be able to visit the uk without a visa, but aren't free to just start working, ie just like turks and most of the western wrold.
Indeed.
And perhaps most significantly, EU citizens will no longer be entitled to the same welfare benefits (including in work) as British citizens.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
And you thought my 'rogue island' comment was offensive? What a destructive blind alley you are pushing this country down. Shame on you.
Well that got a response. Lol.
It's supposed to be a club with an exit procedure, but apparently some are suggesting it's Hotel California. Believe you me that is the road to perdition. We voted to leave, try to subsume us into a USE and I cannot imagine that it's going to be sweetness and light. Quite the opposite.
Many Brexiteers seem to envy the people who left Europe in a physical sense to go to America or Australasia. Ultimately that's the only way to be free of European politics if that's what you desire. Britain will always be a part of it, whether in the EU or not.
Your argument, in essence, is that resistance is futile.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
And you thought my 'rogue island' comment was offensive? What a destructive blind alley you are pushing this country down. Shame on you.
Well that got a response. Lol.
It's supposed to be a club with an exit procedure, but apparently some are suggesting it's Hotel California. Believe you me that is the road to perdition. We voted to leave, try to subsume us into a USE and I cannot imagine that it's going to be sweetness and light. Quite the opposite.
Many Brexiteers seem to envy the people who left Europe in a physical sense to go to America or Australasia. Ultimately that's the only way to be free of European politics if that's what you desire. Britain will always be a part of it, whether in the EU or not.
Fair enough, but why not Canada to their USA, rather than Oregon to the rest of the USA?
If we are forced as you seem to wish into a USE the consequences I fear will not be peaceful.
I don't see it as a question of being 'forced'; I just think fully engaging with the EU from within is our best available option in the real world. We're too big to be satisfied with being a rule-taker a la Norway, too small to engage with the EU from the outside as an equal, and too proud to accept being an also ran geopolitically.
I don't know if that's the gameplan, but it's not the way the EU are playing it. They have been very on-message so far, our lot have been shambolic and the EU have the better cards anyway. In other words, the way the EU are playing it is almost certainly the way it will be played. The Article 50 talks are in three stages: (1) the stuff the EU wants that it insists will be dealt with first (money, citizens and Ireland); (2) then an outline of our desired destination, which is a preferential trade agreement similar to the Canadian one; and finally (3) the "transition arrangements". Then we Brexit. One of those stages is so much more important to us than the others that the others don't actually matter very much - the so called "transition arrangements", which are actually continuity arrangements. Can goods be exported to the continent without customs procedures that don't exist? are planes certified and insured to fly? etc etc. This will be decided in the final months before Brexit when there will be a big sense of anxiety.
The UK will hastily agree to the EU proposal of time limited access on current terms and payments etc. Then and only then will the lengthy discussions about the free trade agreement. The EU won't have any great sense of urgency about concluding the FTA but they can keep us on a tight leash with the continuity arrangements if they want to. The UK could crash out of the talks but there is no reason for it to do so. They have been structured so the UK agrees to the current stage because it wants the next one. And if it did so, the EU would insist the talks resume from where they left off.
Brexit is a fifteen year or so process. There won't be a single point at which a UK government can say, that's it, we're done. It's more likely to gradually run out of steam. The EU will have proved its point long before.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
The contradictions are ours. We don't have to stick to the process. We can crash out any time, but we won't. Because we want a trade arrangement with the EU. We need continuity. If we crash out of talks we have an absence of an arrangement, not an alternative so we will crash back in again in that case.
And at the same time, the EU need a goods agreement with us. Hence the transition will be as short as possible.
Two points. The EU doesn't need the continuity in the same way we do. A continuation of current arrangements does provide that continuity. We will want to take it, I believe.
The UK will hastily agree to the EU proposal of time limited access on current terms and payments etc. Then and only then will the lengthy discussions about the free trade agreement. The EU won't have any great sense of urgency about concluding the FTA but they can keep us on a tight leash with the continuity arrangements if they want to. The UK could crash out of the talks but there is no reason for it to do so. They have been structured so the UK agrees to the current stage because it wants the next one. And if it did so, the EU would insist the talks resume from where they left off.
Brexit is a fifteen year or so process. There won't be a single point at which a UK government can say, that's it, we're done. It's more likely to gradually run out of steam. The EU will have proved its point long before.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
The contradictions are ours. We don't have to stick to the process. We can crash out any time, but we won't. Because we want a trade arrangement with the EU. We need continuity. If we crash out of talks we have an absence of an arrangement, not an alternative so we will crash back in again in that case.
And at the same time, the EU need a goods agreement with us. Hence the transition will be as short as possible.
Two points. The EU doesn't need the continuity in the same way we do. A continuation of current arrangements does provide that continuity. We will want to take it, I believe.
Indeed, because exporting companies and manufacturers of Europe don't have investment decisions etc to take.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
And you thought my 'rogue island' comment was offensive? What a destructive blind alley you are pushing this country down. Shame on you.
Well that got a response. Lol.
It's supposed to be a club with an exit procedure, but apparently some are suggesting it's Hotel California. Believe you me that is the road to perdition. We voted to leave, try to subsume us into a USE and I cannot imagine that it's going to be sweetness and light. Quite the opposite.
Many Brexiteers seem to envy the people who left Europe in a physical sense to go to America or Australasia. Ultimately that's the only way to be free of European politics if that's what you desire. Britain will always be a part of it, whether in the EU or not.
Fair enough, but why not Canada to their USA, rather than Oregon to the rest of the USA?
If we are forced as you seem to wish into a USE the consequences I fear will not be peaceful.
I don't see it as a question of being 'forced'; I just think fully engaging with the EU from within is our best available option in the real world. We're too big to be satisfied with being a rule-taker a la Norway, too small to engage with the EU from the outside as an equal, and too proud to accept being an also ran geopolitically.
Ok fair enough. Plenty of us disagree to our bootstraps, and are not prepared to see over a thousand years of history disappear without a long bitter resistance by all means we can. We tried the EU, it failed us, it's not democratic, it has no consent for ever closer union to a USE, it cannot contemplate variable geometry and above all there is no single demos.
Yes, because their aim is to inflame attitudes all round. If the little bits of the South that vote Left are provoked into winding up the rest, the Nazis will welcome this.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
And you thought my 'rogue island' comment was offensive? What a destructive blind alley you are pushing this country down. Shame on you.
Well that got a response. Lol.
It's supposed to be a club with an exit procedure, but apparently some are suggesting it's Hotel California. Believe you me that is the road to perdition. We voted to leave, try to subsume us into a USE and I cannot imagine that it's going to be sweetness and light. Quite the opposite.
Many Brexiteers seem to envy the people who left Europe in a physical sense to go to America or Australasia. Ultimately that's the only way to be free of European politics if that's what you desire. Britain will always be a part of it, whether in the EU or not.
Fair enough, but why not Canada to their USA, rather than Oregon to the rest of the USA?
If we are forced as you seem to wish into a USE the consequences I fear will not be peaceful.
I don't see it as a question of being 'forced'; I just think fully engaging with the EU from within is our best available option in the real world. We're too big to be satisfied with being a rule-taker a la Norway, too small to engage with the EU from the outside as an equal, and too proud to accept being an also ran geopolitically.
Norway isn't a rule taker. No doubt you will spout the usual rubbish about Norway having to accept 3/4 of all EU laws.
A brilliantly bonkers article. I particularly liked this juxtaposition:
“There’s no magic bullet. It just doesn’t exist,” said Dr Maguire, who has just returned from a Nato-sponsored research trip to the El Paso/Juarez crossing point, one of the most heavily guarded borders in the world.
In the next paragraph the very same guy says:
“The technology is certainly there to produce a smart border and in fact there are many of them in existence already, such as between the US and Canada and Israel and Palestine."
So which is the more realistic model for the Irish border - Mexico/US, or US/Canada?
I see that the "German car makers will insist" argument is having another outing tonight, in defiance of all the available evidence.
It's been given a new twist. Apparently if Merkel is in coalition with the FDP after the election, then Germany will behave in a more 'business-like' way.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
The UK can leave any time it wishes, and indeed is leaving and will have left by April 2019. The cooperation of the EU is not necessary to this process.
However such a hard Brexit has costs in terms like things like the UK/Ireland border, sales of goods into the EU, and so on. If you want to minimise those costs it is necessary to reach an agreement with the EU and to do that it is necessary to give them something that they consider valuable.
In short, you have to make a deal.
Many Leavers were under the impression that the EU would be substantially hurt by a UK departure and so would enact only a small price for such a deal. I argued at the time that this was fallacious and it seems I was correct: the EU can withstand UK departure relatively easily and so can demand a higher price for the deal. This I believe accounts for the consternation evinced by Big_G_North Wales and yourself (unless I'm getting you mixed up with Cornish John, in which case apols) that the EU is not seeking what you consider a reasonable compromise. It can afford not to.
But regardless of this your options were always the same: you can have total independence at a cost in terms of less trade, or some interdependence at a cost of EU jurisdiction. It's a free choice and it's up to you. But there are no such things as a free lunch and the belief of Leavers that this would be a cost-free process was simply incorrect.
How many Canadians are forlornly looking South at the moment thinking "if only Trump was our President too"?
Yet some muppets seem to think because we share a continent with a bigger union as a neighbour we can't be outside of it. I'd rather be Canada than the USA right now.
I see that the "German car makers will insist" argument is having another outing tonight, in defiance of all the available evidence.
It's been given a new twist. Apparently if Merkel is in coalition with the FDP after the election, then Germany will behave in a more 'business-like' way.
Probably true, actually, although it's a marginal point.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
The UK can leave any time it wishes, and indeed is leaving and will have left by April 2019. The cooperation of the EU is not necessary to this process.
However such a hard Brexit has costs in terms like things like the UK/Ireland border, sales of goods into the EU, and so on. If you want to minimise those costs it is necessary to reach an agreement with the EU and to do that it is necessary to give them something that they consider valuable.
In short, you have to make a deal.
Many Leavers were under the impression that the EU would be substantially hurt by a UK departure and so would enact only a small price for such a deal. I argued at the time that this was fallacious and it seems I was correct: the EU can withstand UK departure relatively easily and so can demand a higher price for the deal. This I believe accounts for the consternation evinced by Big_G_North Wales and yourself (unless I'm getting you mixed up with Cornish John, in which case apols) that the EU is not seeking what you consider a reasonable compromise. It can afford not to.
But regardless of this your options were always the same: you can have total independence at a cost in terms of less trade, or some interdependence at a cost of EU jurisdiction. It's a free choice and it's up to you. But there are no such things as a free lunch and the belief of Leavers that this would be a cost-free process was simply incorrect.
Agreed. It's a negotiation with trade offs, fair enough. I do get a tad vexed when some suggest the nigh on impossibility of ever leaving.
Canada has realpolitik trade offs with its bigger neighbour. Nobody doubts it's its own place though free to make its own choices while being friendly to its neighbour. Sounds great.
I don't know if that's the gameplan, but it's not the way the EU are playing it. They have been very on-message so far, our lot have been shambolic and the EU have the better cards anyway. In other words, the way the EU are playing it is almost certainly the way it will be played. The Article 50 talks are in three stages: (1) the stuff the EU wants that it insists will be dealt with first (money, citizens and Ireland); (2) then an outline of our desired destination, which is a preferential trade agreement similar to the Canadian one; and finally (3) the "transition arrangements". Then we Brexit. One of those stages is so much more important to us than the others that the others don't actually matter very much - the so called "transition arrangements", which are actually continuity arrangements. Can goods be exported to the continent without customs procedures that don't exist? are planes certified and insured to fly? etc etc. This will be decided in the final months before Brexit when there will be a big sense of anxiety.
The UK will hastily agree to the EU proposal of time limited access on current terms and payments etc. Then and only then will the lengthy discussions about the free trade agreement. The EU won't have any great sense of urgency about concluding the FTA but they can keep us on a tight leash with the continuity arrangements if they want to. The UK could crash out of the talks but there is no reason for it to do so. They have been structured so the UK agrees to the current stage because it wants the next one. And if it did so, the EU would insist the talks resume from where they left off.
Brexit is a fifteen year or so process. There won't be a single point at which a UK government can say, that's it, we're done. It's more likely to gradually run out of steam. The EU will have proved its point long before.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
I don't think the EU can spin it out forever. We will have to believe at every stage that we are working towards a deal that we want. The longer we go the more committed we will be to continuing the process. Fifteen years is a realistic timeframe. There is a possibility that we will never get to the end point. But that will be because we have given up pushing for it.
I don't know if that's the gameplan, but it's not the way the EU are playing it. They have been very on-message so far, our lot have been shambolic and the EU have the better cards anyway. In other words, the way the EU are playing it is almost certainly the way it will be played. The Article 50 talks are in three stages: (1) the stuff the EU wants that it insists will be dealt with first (money, citizens and Ireland); (2) then an outline of our desired destination, which is a preferential trade agreement similar to the Canadian one; and finally (3) the "transition arrangements". Then we Brexit. One of those stages is so much more important to us than the others that the others don't actually matter very much - the so called "transition arrangements", which are actually continuity arrangements. Can goods be exported to the continent without customs procedures that don't exist? are planes certified and insured to fly? etc etc. This will be decided in the final months before Brexit when there will be a big sense of anxiety.
The UK will hastily agree to the EU proposal of time limited access on current terms and payments etc. Then and only then will the lengthy discussions about the free trade agreement. The EU won't have any great sense of urgency about concluding the FTA but they can keep us on a tight leash with the continuity arrangements if they want to. The UK could crash out of the talks but there is no reason for it to do so. They have been structured so the UK agrees to the current stage because it wants the next one. And if it did so, the EU would insist the talks resume from where they left off.
Brexit is a fifteen year or so process. There won't be a single point at which a UK government can say, that's it, we're done. It's more likely to gradually run out of steam. The EU will have proved its point long before.
The "point" being we can't really leave a la Hotel California? In which case it's a prison. So do we resort to live ammunition to fulfill the democratic will of the British people?
I don't think the EU can spin it out forever. We will have to believe at every stage that we are working towards a deal that we want. The longer we go the more committed we will be to continuing the process. Fifteen years is a realistic timeframe. There is a possibility that we will never get to the end point. But that will be because we have given up pushing for it.
I see Remainers are still engaging in the 'wishful thinking' strategy that didn't work out too well last year...
A brilliantly bonkers article. I particularly liked this juxtaposition:
“There’s no magic bullet. It just doesn’t exist,” said Dr Maguire, who has just returned from a Nato-sponsored research trip to the El Paso/Juarez crossing point, one of the most heavily guarded borders in the world.
In the next paragraph the very same guy says:
“The technology is certainly there to produce a smart border and in fact there are many of them in existence already, such as between the US and Canada and Israel and Palestine."
So which is the more realistic model for the Irish border - Mexico/US, or US/Canada?
Answers on a postcard to Michel Barnier.
Um, are we really holding up the Israel/Palestine border as an example to be followed? It's a bit concrete-y these days...
A brilliantly bonkers article. I particularly liked this juxtaposition:
“There’s no magic bullet. It just doesn’t exist,” said Dr Maguire, who has just returned from a Nato-sponsored research trip to the El Paso/Juarez crossing point, one of the most heavily guarded borders in the world.
In the next paragraph the very same guy says:
“The technology is certainly there to produce a smart border and in fact there are many of them in existence already, such as between the US and Canada and Israel and Palestine."
So which is the more realistic model for the Irish border - Mexico/US, or US/Canada?
Answers on a postcard to Michel Barnier.
Um, are we really holding up the Israel/Palestine border as an example to be followed? It's a bit concrete-y these days...
No, we're holding up the Canada/US one, which is a very good model.
A brilliantly bonkers article. I particularly liked this juxtaposition:
“There’s no magic bullet. It just doesn’t exist,” said Dr Maguire, who has just returned from a Nato-sponsored research trip to the El Paso/Juarez crossing point, one of the most heavily guarded borders in the world.
In the next paragraph the very same guy says:
“The technology is certainly there to produce a smart border and in fact there are many of them in existence already, such as between the US and Canada and Israel and Palestine."
So which is the more realistic model for the Irish border - Mexico/US, or US/Canada?
Answers on a postcard to Michel Barnier.
Um, are we really holding up the Israel/Palestine border as an example to be followed? It's a bit concrete-y these days...
A brilliantly bonkers article. I particularly liked this juxtaposition:
“There’s no magic bullet. It just doesn’t exist,” said Dr Maguire, who has just returned from a Nato-sponsored research trip to the El Paso/Juarez crossing point, one of the most heavily guarded borders in the world.
In the next paragraph the very same guy says:
“The technology is certainly there to produce a smart border and in fact there are many of them in existence already, such as between the US and Canada and Israel and Palestine."
So which is the more realistic model for the Irish border - Mexico/US, or US/Canada?
Answers on a postcard to Michel Barnier.
Number plate recognition being ruled out... there were posters up in my village a few years back about ANPR being in force, so I'm not exactly sure which part of the GFA that would violate !
A brilliantly bonkers article. I particularly liked this juxtaposition:
“There’s no magic bullet. It just doesn’t exist,” said Dr Maguire, who has just returned from a Nato-sponsored research trip to the El Paso/Juarez crossing point, one of the most heavily guarded borders in the world.
In the next paragraph the very same guy says:
“The technology is certainly there to produce a smart border and in fact there are many of them in existence already, such as between the US and Canada and Israel and Palestine."
So which is the more realistic model for the Irish border - Mexico/US, or US/Canada?
Answers on a postcard to Michel Barnier.
Um, are we really holding up the Israel/Palestine border as an example to be followed? It's a bit concrete-y these days...
Ours is a bit wet ...
[breathes in thru teeth] You'll never get it to set like that. Tell you what: I can do you in brick with a nice render. Shouldn't take more than a couple of months...
Yes, because their aim is to inflame attitudes all round. If the little bits of the South that vote Left are provoked into winding up the rest, the Nazis will welcome this.
A brilliantly bonkers article. I particularly liked this juxtaposition:
“There’s no magic bullet. It just doesn’t exist,” said Dr Maguire, who has just returned from a Nato-sponsored research trip to the El Paso/Juarez crossing point, one of the most heavily guarded borders in the world.
In the next paragraph the very same guy says:
“The technology is certainly there to produce a smart border and in fact there are many of them in existence already, such as between the US and Canada and Israel and Palestine."
So which is the more realistic model for the Irish border - Mexico/US, or US/Canada?
Answers on a postcard to Michel Barnier.
The US/Canada border would be a good model - they have the busiest land border in the world. The Ambassador Bridge heading into Detroit carries the same volume of lorries each day as pass through the Port of Dover with most processing having been done electronically in advance. Further modernising and streamlining customs procedures is going to benefit more than just UK/EU trade of course...
Comments
This looks like it will end in the courts or in a hospital - possibly both.
So where we are this evening, politically, not geographically, I know where I am, I don't really care where anyone else is ?
The Conservative game plan hit me in the face like a wet haddock this evening (and that has happened to me before. You'd be surprised the dealings I've had with wet fish down the years).
Back come Davis, Johnson and Fox with a Treaty and Parliament, which has a gun to its head, has to endorse it because the alternative is to crash out without a Treaty and that will be portrayed as the end of the world as we know it.
There'll probably be a 12-month transitional period to tidy up some loose ends but we will leave the EU on or about 1/4/19.
May retires in the summer of 19 with the grateful thanks of the Party and any "good riddance" kept quiet. The new leader (let's call them X) rallies the Party and over the next 12-18 months the economy is primed with a few tax cuts, a bit of extra borrowing so that by the spring of 2021, the message will be "leaving the EU was the best thing we ever did. Global Britain is moving forward with confidence into the new decade" - you can almost see the posters now.
GE in May 2021 - Conservatives win new majority.
Maybe and it might explain why the 2017 GE was necessary even if the result wasn't.
For those of us not of a Conservative disposition, it all looks chillingly plausible but then so did a landslide in June.
With the passing of the A50 treaty, new options become available - NOT, I emphasise, rejoining the EU but re-negotiating the Treaty. Any party could have as a manifesto commitment something along the lines of "we have left the EU but the Treaty on which we left was inadequate and deficient in these areas (to be listed). We would seek to improve the terms and negotiate a better deal for the United Kingdom". That would be credible.
IF we crash out of the EU without a Treaty, which I don;t consider likely but is plausible, the line can simply be "the Conservatives failed to achieve the best deal for the UK. We will sort out their mess and re-build our economic relationship with the EU".
The problem for now is that we are trapped until 2019 when there will either be an A50 treaty or there won't. The process of leaving cannot and must not be stopped but the terms on which we leave are an entirely different matter and especially so once we've left. There's no reason why a new Government couldn't change the Treaty in key areas if it so wished and had a majority in the Commons to do so.
No-one is listening to opposing points of view, purely defending their side and attacking the other almost regardless of facts, which have become merged seamlessly with opinions through one-sides news outlets.
Those who have been mindlessly and hysterically screaming at Trump for 18 months now look like the boy who cried wolf, when there's actually something seriously worth criticising.
It's sadly going to get a lot worse before it gets better, maybe there's room for a party in the middle with sensible attitudes to the first and second amendments, rather than one who want to shut down dissenting opinion and the other who want everyone to own military hardware.
https://legacy.voteview.com/political_polarization_2015.htm
tolerance is dying
On the substantive point, you could be right about the treaty but that does rather presuppose the EU are willing to agree one. So far the signs are bad. Aside from a lot of slogans and ridiculous offers they clearly know will be rejected, we've had nothing from them. Moreover, anything they do agree may well be vetoed by the EU Parliament. No treaty is still the default option. If you want to measure its likelihood, track Deutsche Bank's share price - if it recovers to the extent it could withstand the shock of losing the City, they will get much more hardline than they are already. If it still teeters on the brink of ruin, they will be nervous about the Euro and may soft-pedal their approach.
One advantage of calling the election was indeed that it bought more time. However, let's not overthink it. May saw a chance to turn a small, troubled majority into a huge one. That's why she called it, although she then blew it. It was the Harold Wilson option of '66, with the result of a Harold Wilson in '74.
https://twitter.com/costareports/status/897550366396600320
And answered
https://twitter.com/markjlittlewood/status/897788445984264192
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897909480964358145
The only safe outcome for Britain!
What happened in 41BC?
Is he confusing Caesar's failed invasions of 55 and 54 BC, and Claudius' conquest of the south in 43AD?
Because if so he's really horribly confused.
If you hear hoofbeats think horses...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4794214/Kate-Hopkins-Bridge-Lies.html
But I meant related to Britain. I don't think Octavian cared about the northern outposts of not quite part of the Empire (although TSE may tell me I'm wrong, I know very little about him). So I'm assuming Chapman's getting muddled over dates, or that he's drunk. Or both, of course.
I think these last few hours have put to bed any notion that he is a serious figure. I notice his erstwhile defenders/admirers are conspicuous by their silence. As an aside I do think one or two of them owe some apologies. While what appears to be happening to him is tragic, it's a personal tragedy being turned into a national comedy by Twitter. Which is rather a disturbing thought.
On the subject of bed, that's where I am heading. Good night and sweet dreams to all.
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/andrew-o-hagan-britain-smashed-by-brexit-and-scotland-under-threat-1-4533444
“Can we with a fresh conscience now say that Britain is taking us forward? Can we say that leaving Europe, without our consent, is set to enhance our children’s lives and connect them more constructively to the world of the future?
“Our moment has arrived. We are where we are. And it may be that the bigger unity, the modern union meshing Scotland with Europe and the world, is now a journey Scotland makes alone.
Have MikeS and TSE scared all the others off?
If I were to say since when Britain was European, 41 BC wouldn't be the date I'd be picking
Someone's got to save the party from the Leadbangers.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kasun122.htm
"Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47
(1948) of 21 April, 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948, 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and 91(1951)
of 30 March, 1951, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13
August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will
be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a
free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_47
The UK will hastily agree to the EU proposal of time limited access on current terms and payments etc. Then and only then will the lengthy discussions about the free trade agreement. The EU won't have any great sense of urgency about concluding the FTA but they can keep us on a tight leash with the continuity arrangements if they want to. The UK could crash out of the talks but there is no reason for it to do so. They have been structured so the UK agrees to the current stage because it wants the next one. And if it did so, the EU would insist the talks resume from where they left off.
Brexit is a fifteen year or so process. There won't be a single point at which a UK government can say, that's it, we're done. It's more likely to gradually run out of steam. The EU will have proved its point long before.
I would suggest Pelagius as the first British Eurosceptic philosopher.
It's not about independence is it though... it's just petty 'anything but the English'.
It's supposed to be a club with an exit procedure, but apparently some are suggesting it's Hotel California. Believe you me that is the road to perdition. We voted to leave, try to subsume us into a USE and I cannot imagine that it's going to be sweetness and light. Quite the opposite.
If we are forced as you seem to wish into a USE the consequences I fear will not be peaceful.
https://twitter.com/levarstoney/status/897928382918348802
Oh, wait...
And perhaps most significantly, EU citizens will no longer be entitled to the same welfare benefits (including in work) as British citizens.
We have no right to be sovereign.
Oh, wait....
“There’s no magic bullet. It just doesn’t exist,” said Dr Maguire, who has just returned from a Nato-sponsored research trip to the El Paso/Juarez crossing point, one of the most heavily guarded borders in the world.
In the next paragraph the very same guy says:
“The technology is certainly there to produce a smart border and in fact there are many of them in existence already, such as between the US and Canada and Israel and Palestine."
So which is the more realistic model for the Irish border - Mexico/US, or US/Canada?
Answers on a postcard to Michel Barnier.
However such a hard Brexit has costs in terms like things like the UK/Ireland border, sales of goods into the EU, and so on. If you want to minimise those costs it is necessary to reach an agreement with the EU and to do that it is necessary to give them something that they consider valuable.
In short, you have to make a deal.
Many Leavers were under the impression that the EU would be substantially hurt by a UK departure and so would enact only a small price for such a deal. I argued at the time that this was fallacious and it seems I was correct: the EU can withstand UK departure relatively easily and so can demand a higher price for the deal. This I believe accounts for the consternation evinced by Big_G_North Wales and yourself (unless I'm getting you mixed up with Cornish John, in which case apols) that the EU is not seeking what you consider a reasonable compromise. It can afford not to.
But regardless of this your options were always the same: you can have total independence at a cost in terms of less trade, or some interdependence at a cost of EU jurisdiction. It's a free choice and it's up to you. But there are no such things as a free lunch and the belief of Leavers that this would be a cost-free process was simply incorrect.
Yet some muppets seem to think because we share a continent with a bigger union as a neighbour we can't be outside of it. I'd rather be Canada than the USA right now.
Mark Sampson: England women's boss accused of 'racial' comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40955458
Canada has realpolitik trade offs with its bigger neighbour. Nobody doubts it's its own place though free to make its own choices while being friendly to its neighbour. Sounds great.
Edit: He's too fast for me. But just scroll down a few.
Surely his days at Bell Pottinger are numbered.
Not sure where the line is on commenting on these things, I assume that's vague enough not to cross it.