@paulwaugh: It's happened folks. Govt wins vote to secure Tory majority in cttees, by 320 to 301. V signif
It does seem as if the Government whips are highly organised and doing a very good job for Theresa May. For all the doubts the party does seem to be disciplined and getting out their vote
Williamson is doing a sterling job.
Worth a few quid as an outside chance as next leader, perhaps.
Nope. Not a chance.
(Which isn't to say that he's not going a good job - but it's a completely different job).
Very true, but his exaction of loyalty from the Tory benches is more than impressive, even in the face of Brexit and the Corbyn threat.
What makes you so sure he isn't in with a shot Richard?
Has a whip ever gone on to lead a party?
I'd have thought typically a whip makes quite a lot of enemies?
Mind you, there was a report a while ago that Theresa wanted Gavin Williamson to be her successor (and that's why she got him to sign the DUP agreement) so you never know.
Maybe the coming reshuffle will see him moved to a senior Cabinet position...
I don't think that no deal is the preferred outcome. But, it is a possible outcome.
It seems to be the outcome our EU friends want, so we certainly need to plan for it.
All they've said Richard is that we can't have the same benefits from outside. An obvious truism. Beyond that, it's about negotiation in good faith. Something that's difficult when the UK Govt doesn't appear to have a settled view of what it wants.
Negotiation in good faith would involve talking about the future relationship as part of, or even before, talking about the Irish border and any exit fee. After all, it's completely obvious that we can't discuss any exit fee unless we know what we're exiting to, and even more obvious that it's bonkers to talk about the Irish border when we haven't been allowed to even begin talking about EU/UK border arrangements. What's more, Article 50 is 100% clear that the withdrawal can only be discussed in the context of the ongoing relationship, which makes perfect sense.
So, no, not good faith, I'm afraid, either de facto or de jure.
@paulwaugh: It's happened folks. Govt wins vote to secure Tory majority in cttees, by 320 to 301. V signif
It does seem as if the Government whips are highly organised and doing a very good job for Theresa May. For all the doubts the party does seem to be disciplined and getting out their vote
Williamson is doing a sterling job.
Worth a few quid as an outside chance as next leader, perhaps.
Nope. Not a chance.
(Which isn't to say that he's not going a good job - but it's a completely different job).
Very true, but his exaction of loyalty from the Tory benches is more than impressive, even in the face of Brexit and the Corbyn threat.
What makes you so sure he isn't in with a shot Richard?
Has a whip ever gone on to lead a party?
I'd have thought typically a whip makes quite a lot of enemies?
Mind you, there was a report a while ago that Theresa wanted Gavin Williamson to be her successor (and that's why she got him to sign the DUP agreement) so you never know.
Maybe the coming reshuffle will see him moved to a senior Cabinet position...
As I pointed out to @Big_G_NorthWales the other day, the "attempt-to-bypass-the-Commission-by-appealing-directly-to-the-heads" strategy (the "Cameron Gambit"?) has been tried three times in the last three years: Cameron pre-agreement, Trump post-inauguration, Davis post-referendum. It's failed each time.
Remind me again what the definition of insanity is?
I don't think that no deal is the preferred outcome. But, it is a possible outcome.
It seems to be the outcome our EU friends want, so we certainly need to plan for it.
All they've said Richard is that we can't have the same benefits from outside. An obvious truism. Beyond that, it's about negotiation in good faith. Something that's difficult when the UK Govt doesn't appear to have a settled view of what it wants.
Negotiation in good faith would involve talking about the future relationship as part of, or even before, talking about the Irish border and any exit fee. After all, it's completely obvious that we can't discuss any exit fee unless we know what we're exiting to, and even more obvious that it's bonkers to talk about the Irish border when we haven't been allowed to even begin talking about EU/UK border arrangements. What's more, Article 50 is 100% clear that the withdrawal can only be discussed in the context of the ongoing relationship, which makes perfect sense.
So, no, not good faith, I'm afraid, either de facto or de jure.
Do you think the government was wrong at the outset to sign up to the EU's timetable for the talks?
Do you think the government was wrong at the outset to sign up to the EU's timetable for the talks?
A difficult one. If the other side refuses to act rationally, your only choice is to either work with the irrationality, or walk out. It's not clear that walking out would buy us anything.
Well, for good or ill, the results of the votes of the last 2 nights mean the Brexit process is wholly-owned by the Conservative Party and the DUP. They will glory in its success or dwell in its ignominy.
Well, for good or ill, the results of the votes of the last 2 nights mean the Brexit process is wholly-owned by the Conservative Party and the DUP. They will glory in its success or dwell in its ignominy.
Better to own it with at least some control, since politically they'll own it anyway.
Well, for good or ill, the results of the votes of the last 2 nights mean the Brexit process is wholly-owned by the Conservative Party and the DUP. They will glory in its success or dwell in its ignominy.
The level of control necessary for something so complex as Brexit means those two votes were imperative. This is not the beginning of the end, but surely the end of the beginning for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill?
It's May's attempt to secure the Parliamentary majority denied her by the bloody voters.
She now has a guaranteed majority on every committee scrutinising Brexit
Awesome!
Good politics by the whips then
Indeed. The baloney about Corbyn being a PM in waiting is shown up as such by the fact that politics is largely about process, and sometimes rather technical process at that; Corbyn doesn't seem to have got to grips with that.
For all Miliband's faults, he understood Parly procedure. Probably because he didn't spend his entire career sniping from the back benches and preaching to choirs in Islington,
Actually, Trotskyites are usually very good at the rulebook, packing votes and pushing through agendas when they get the chance.
Theresa is setting an aeful lot of precedents for autocracy.
I don't think that no deal is the preferred outcome. But, it is a possible outcome.
It seems to be the outcome our EU friends want, so we certainly need to plan for it.
All they've said Richard is that we can't have the same benefits from outside. An obvious truism. Beyond that, it's about negotiation in good faith. Something that's difficult when the UK Govt doesn't appear to have a settled view of what it wants.
Negotiation in good faith would involve talking about the future relationship as part of, or even before, talking about the Irish border and any exit fee. After all, it's completely obvious that we can't discuss any exit fee unless we know what we're exiting to, and even more obvious that it's bonkers to talk about the Irish border when we haven't been allowed to even begin talking about EU/UK border arrangements. What's more, Article 50 is 100% clear that the withdrawal can only be discussed in the context of the ongoing relationship, which makes perfect sense.
So, no, not good faith, I'm afraid, either de facto or de jure.
As I think I pointed out to @Charles, to characterise the negotiations as "negotiations" is a bit of a misunderstanding. They've been pretty definite from the beginning that this is settling the bill and anything about new future relationships comes after.
We (the UK and PB) have this continuing tendency to construct a virtual EU in-our-heads, whether the Jerusalem of WilliamGlenn or the gehenna of Cornish_John, and be surprised by the gap between reality and fantasy. Why characterise it as "negotiating in bad faith"? It's never pretended to do anything other than what it is doing, and told us so from the very beginning. Which is the very opposite of "bad faith".
Well, for good or ill, the results of the votes of the last 2 nights mean the Brexit process is wholly-owned by the Conservative Party and the DUP. They will glory in its success or dwell in its ignominy.
Better to own it with at least some control, since politically they'll own it anyway.
Indeed. The only scapegoats if what emerges is in the shape of a pear will be the EU. Saboteurs have no influence.
As I think I pointed out to @Charles, to characterise the negotiations as "negotiations" is a bit of a misunderstanding. They've been pretty definite from the beginning that this is settling the bill and anything about new future relationships comes after.
We (the UK and PB) have this continuing tendency to construct a virtual EU in-our-heads, whether the Jerusalem of WilliamGlenn or the gehenna of Cornish_John, and be surprised by the gap between reality and fantasy. Why characterise it as "negotiating in bad faith"? It's never pretended to do anything other than what it is doing, and told us so from the very beginning. Which is the very opposite of "bad faith".
It's bad faith if they're not following the spirit and text of Article 50 of their own treaty.
If no progress can be made within the framework of Barnier's mandate and the EU27's approach, then we might have to fall back on Plan B. That to my mind isn't walking out, but offering an alternative approach. Basically we'd say:
- As we have made clear from the start, we are leaving the EU, and therefore all existing obligations end on March 19th 2019. So you can put your demand for €100bn for nothing in return up your Juncker. - However, as we have made clear from the start, we want a constructive and friendly relationship, in our capacity as the world's fifth or sixth largest economy which happens to be on your doorstep, which contains Europe's financial centre, which is a huge export market for you, which is vital to your security, and which sends millions of tourists over to you (are you listening Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France?). It would be a pity if something regrettable were to happen to your economies as a result of any unpleasantness, wouldn't it? - So we propose an alternative to your approach. This involves guarantees to your citizens, continued close security and military cooperation, and a fat fee from us. In return we want no cliff edge, and a trade deal. Do you wanna play or not, given that no play means no dosh and big damage to your economies?
It's somewhat nuclear, but then so is their approach. There might be nothing to lose.
As I think I pointed out to @Charles, to characterise the negotiations as "negotiations" is a bit of a misunderstanding. They've been pretty definite from the beginning that this is settling the bill and anything about new future relationships comes after.
We (the UK and PB) have this continuing tendency to construct a virtual EU in-our-heads, whether the Jerusalem of WilliamGlenn or the gehenna of Cornish_John, and be surprised by the gap between reality and fantasy. Why characterise it as "negotiating in bad faith"? It's never pretended to do anything other than what it is doing, and told us so from the very beginning. Which is the very opposite of "bad faith".
It's bad faith if they're not following the spirit and text of Article 50 of their own treaty.
If no progress can be made within the framework of Barnier's mandate and the EU27's approach, then we might have to fall back on Plan B. That to my mind isn't walking out, but offering an alternative approach. Basically we'd say:
- As we have made clear from the start, we are leaving the EU, and therefore all existing obligations end on March 19th 2019. So you can put your demand for €100bn for nothing in return up your Juncker. - However, as we have made clear from the start, we want a constructive and friendly relationship, in our capacity as the world's fifth or sixth largest economy which happens to be on your doorstep, which contains Europe's financial centre, which is a huge export market for you, which is vital to your security, and which sends millions of tourists over to you (are you listening Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France?). It would be a pity if something regrettable were to happen to your economies as a result of any unpleasantness, wouldn't it? - So we propose an alternative to your approach. This involves guarantees to your citizens, continued close security and military cooperation, and a fat fee from us. In return we want no cliff edge, and a trade deal. Do you wanna play or not, given that no play means no dosh and big damage to your economies?
It's somewhat nuclear, but then so is their approach. There might be nothing to lose.
Boris would do it... Not sure Theresa has it in her.
As I think I pointed out to @Charles, to characterise the negotiations as "negotiations" is a bit of a misunderstanding. They've been pretty definite from the beginning that this is settling the bill and anything about new future relationships comes after.
We (the UK and PB) have this continuing tendency to construct a virtual EU in-our-heads, whether the Jerusalem of WilliamGlenn or the gehenna of Cornish_John, and be surprised by the gap between reality and fantasy. Why characterise it as "negotiating in bad faith"? It's never pretended to do anything other than what it is doing, and told us so from the very beginning. Which is the very opposite of "bad faith".
It's bad faith if they're not following the spirit and text of Article 50 of their own treaty.
If no progress can be made within the framework of Barnier's mandate and the EU27's approach, then we might have to fall back on Plan B. That to my mind isn't walking out, but offering an alternative approach. Basically we'd say:
- As we have made clear from the start, we are leaving the EU, and therefore all existing obligations end on March 19th 2019. So you can put your demand for €100bn for nothing in return up your Juncker. - However, as we have made clear from the start, we want a constructive and friendly relationship, in our capacity as the world's fifth or sixth largest economy which happens to be on your doorstep, which contains Europe's financial centre, which is a huge export market for you, which is vital to your security, and which sends millions of tourists over to you (are you listening Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France?). It would be a pity if something regrettable were to happen to your economies as a result of any unpleasantness, wouldn't it? - So we propose an alternative to your approach. This involves guarantees to your citizens, continued close security and military cooperation, and a fat fee from us. In return we want no cliff edge, and a trade deal. Do you wanna play or not, given that no play means no dosh and big damage to your economies?
It's somewhat nuclear, but then so is their approach. There might be nothing to lose.
Boris would do it... Not sure Theresa has it in her.
As I think I pointed out to @Charles, to characterise the negotiations as "negotiations" is a bit of a misunderstanding. They've been pretty definite from the beginning that this is settling the bill and anything about new future relationships comes after.
We (the UK and PB) have this continuing tendency to construct a virtual EU in-our-heads, whether the Jerusalem of WilliamGlenn or the gehenna of Cornish_John, and be surprised by the gap between reality and fantasy. Why characterise it as "negotiating in bad faith"? It's never pretended to do anything other than what it is doing, and told us so from the very beginning. Which is the very opposite of "bad faith".
It's bad faith if they're not following the spirit and text of Article 50 of their own treaty.
If no progress can be made within the framework of Barnier's mandate and the EU27's approach, then we might have to fall back on Plan B. That to my mind isn't walking out, but offering an alternative approach. Basically we'd say:
- As we have made clear from the start, we are leaving the EU, and therefore all existing obligations end on March 19th 2019. So you can put your demand for €100bn for nothing in return up your Juncker. - However, as we have made clear from the start, we want a constructive and friendly relationship, in our capacity as the world's fifth or sixth largest economy which happens to be on your doorstep, which contains Europe's financial centre, which is a huge export market for you, which is vital to your security, and which sends millions of tourists over to you (are you listening Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France?). It would be a pity if something regrettable were to happen to your economies as a result of any unpleasantness, wouldn't it? - So we propose an alternative to your approach. This involves guarantees to your citizens, continued close security and military cooperation, and a fat fee from us. In return we want no cliff edge, and a trade deal. Do you wanna play or not, given that no play means no dosh and big damage to your economies?
It's somewhat nuclear, but then so is their approach. There might be nothing to lose.
The EU have all the best cards.
They can still trade with each other tariff free our best card is a five they have all the aces.
They can still trade with each other tariff free our best card is a five they have all the aces.
They think they have the best cards, but they are 27 countries, and I think they haven't really looked at their hand. Consider the catastrophe for Cyprus, Malta, and Greece, to name the three most obvious, if it all goes pear-shaped on tourism, or the catastrophe for Ireland, if it goes pear-shaped on trade, or the impact on Spain, Holland and France if agricultural trade is disrupted, or the impact on Germany if car sales collapse, or the impact on the Visegrad states if a million EU workers are no longer welcome here, or the impact on everyone if security cooperation stops.
Sure, these would all be disastrous scenarios for us as well, but we'd be offering to help them avoid them. This is not a zero-sum game; I'm not sure they've quite got their heads around this point.
As I think I pointed out to @Charles, to characterise the negotiations as "negotiations" is a bit of a misunderstanding. They've been pretty definite from the beginning that this is settling the bill and anything about new future relationships comes after.
We (the UK and PB) have this continuing tendency to construct a virtual EU in-our-heads, whether the Jerusalem of WilliamGlenn or the gehenna of Cornish_John, and be surprised by the gap between reality and fantasy. Why characterise it as "negotiating in bad faith"? It's never pretended to do anything other than what it is doing, and told us so from the very beginning. Which is the very opposite of "bad faith".
It's bad faith if they're not following the spirit and text of Article 50 of their own treaty.
If no progress can be made within the framework of Barnier's mandate and the EU27's approach, then we might have to fall back on Plan B. That to my mind isn't walking out, but offering an alternative approach. Basically we'd say:
- As we have made clear from the start, we are leaving the EU, and therefore all existing obligations end on March 19th 2019. So you can put your demand for €100bn for nothing in return up your Juncker. - However, as we have made clear from the start, we want a constructive and friendly relationship, in our capacity as the world's fifth or sixth largest economy which happens to be on your doorstep, which contains Europe's financial centre, which is a huge export market for you, which is vital to your security, and which sends millions of tourists over to you (are you listening Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France?). It would be a pity if something regrettable were to happen to your economies as a result of any unpleasantness, wouldn't it? - So we propose an alternative to your approach. This involves guarantees to your citizens, continued close security and military cooperation, and a fat fee from us. In return we want no cliff edge, and a trade deal. Do you wanna play or not, given that no play means no dosh and big damage to your economies?
It's somewhat nuclear, but then so is their approach. There might be nothing to lose.
Unfortunately I'm not as convinced of the effectiveness of the nuclear option. In the previous thread (and I think on others) you said that the EU would suffer disproportionately if we left. I think the numbers and their behavior don't bear that out - if they were as frightened of us as you think they should be ("It would be a pity if something regrettable were to happen to your economies as a result of any unpleasantness, wouldn't it?"), they would be acting differently, whereas it's us who's thrashing about ("deep and special?" "stubborn?" "Cameron Gambit!" "MONKEY TENNIS!") and them who...well, aren't.
It's May's attempt to secure the Parliamentary majority denied her by the bloody voters.
She now has a guaranteed majority on every committee scrutinising Brexit
Awesome!
Good politics by the whips then
Indeed. The baloney about Corbyn being a PM in waiting is shown up as such by the fact that politics is largely about process, and sometimes rather technical process at that; Corbyn doesn't seem to have got to grips with that.
For all Miliband's faults, he understood Parly procedure. Probably because he didn't spend his entire career sniping from the back benches and preaching to choirs in Islington,
Actually, Trotskyites are usually very good at the rulebook, packing votes and pushing through agendas when they get the chance.
Theresa is setting an aeful lot of precedents for autocracy.
Wasn't that the Stalinists? Trotsky was notoriously poor at Party management. Uncle Joe not so.
The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.
You may joke.
I'll probably be first against the wall.
After WWII the Nazi list of people to be eliminated in an occupied Britain was released - Trades Unionists, Communists and other 'undesirables' - including Noel Coward - who quipped 'to think, the people we'd have been seen dead with'.....
Did it not include the editor of the Beano?
Boy Scouts, too.
Interesting, George Bernard Shaw was not on the list. The Germans knew he had a soft spot for dictators.
There is a chilling observation in Shaw's preface to (IIRC) The Millionairess where he writes (in 1936) that Mr Hitler would appear to have a 'bee in his bonnet' over Jews.....
Don't suppose the true beleeeeeeeavers on here will turn a hair as they lurch towards the rapture.
Surely, it would be of greater concern if the Treasury did not make preparations for No Deal.
It's one thing to make preparations for lightning
It's another thing to stand in a tin bath full of water on top of a mountain in a thunderstorm whilst waving a long steel rod and tinfoil hat whilst screaming "THOR IS A TWAT!"
Post of the day....
And only slightly less amusing than when Terry Pratchett first coined it.
That post is why you lost, compressed into 16 words. I don't think we are going to get through to you.
I know exactly why remain lost.
Doesn't change the fact that Brexit is the greatest policy fuckup of my lifetime, nor dim my contempt for those who peddled it
It might well be a fuckup, but surely a fair share of the blame lies with your mates Cameron and Osborne who never put forward a positive case to stay in the EU? Do you have the same contempt for the fucking eejits who ran such a wanky Remain campaign that Nigel Farage came out of it on top?
Some of us learned from 'Please Miss! It's not fair Miss! They cheated Miss!' in the school playground....others, evidently did not....
@paulwaugh: It's happened folks. Govt wins vote to secure Tory majority in cttees, by 320 to 301. V signif
It does seem as if the Government whips are highly organised and doing a very good job for Theresa May. For all the doubts the party does seem to be disciplined and getting out their vote
Williamson is doing a sterling job.
Worth a few quid as an outside chance as next leader, perhaps.
The tories don't elevate their footsoldiers. Richard Ryder only got a peerage for whipping Maastricht through in Major's Confederacy of Dunces which was far harder and more bitter struggle than May's North Koreanisation of Westminster.
Kind of redefines foreign aid - and suggests we might need to rethink how we spend our aid money. If this goes ahead as suggested, it could be transformative of one of the world's poorer societies.
They can still trade with each other tariff free our best card is a five they have all the aces.
They think they have the best cards, but they are 27 countries, and I think they haven't really looked at their hand. Consider the catastrophe for Cyprus, Malta, and Greece, to name the three most obvious, if it all goes pear-shaped on tourism, or the catastrophe for Ireland, if it goes pear-shaped on trade, or the impact on Spain, Holland and France if agricultural trade is disrupted, or the impact on Germany if car sales collapse, or the impact on the Visegrad states if a million EU workers are no longer welcome here, or the impact on everyone if security cooperation stops.
Sure, these would all be disastrous scenarios for us as well, but we'd be offering to help them avoid them. This is not a zero-sum game; I'm not sure they've quite got their heads around this point.
Have you met Greece? The EU is quite capable of accepting economic damage.
Don't suppose the true beleeeeeeeavers on here will turn a hair as they lurch towards the rapture.
Surely, it would be of greater concern if the Treasury did not make preparations for No Deal.
It's one thing to make preparations for lightning
It's another thing to stand in a tin bath full of water on top of a mountain in a thunderstorm whilst waving a long steel rod and tinfoil hat whilst screaming "THOR IS A TWAT!"
Post of the day....
And only slightly less amusing than when Terry Pratchett first coined it.
The path for the Tories is clear. Their voters must lean heavily towards the immigration control option, so how about
1) preparations for third country status vis a vis customs union and single market commence on 1 January 2018
2) declaration that no monies will be paid post March 2019 unless trade deal is agreed
3) declaration that free movement will end, with no preferential status for new EU migrants
4) prepare meticulously for Brexit Day to avoid empty shelves/other signs of tangible disaster
5) change leader
6) go hell for leather for trade deals with Canada, Oz and NZ before May 2022.
I think there will be greater political benefit to the Tories (and thus the nation, by avoiding the disaster of a Corbyn government) to have Brexit concluded by 2019, even at the cost of an economic downturn, than allowing it to drag on towards the end of the Parliament.
They can still trade with each other tariff free our best card is a five they have all the aces.
They think they have the best cards, but they are 27 countries, and I think they haven't really looked at their hand. Consider the catastrophe for Cyprus, Malta, and Greece, to name the three most obvious, if it all goes pear-shaped on tourism, or the catastrophe for Ireland, if it goes pear-shaped on trade, or the impact on Spain, Holland and France if agricultural trade is disrupted, or the impact on Germany if car sales collapse, or the impact on the Visegrad states if a million EU workers are no longer welcome here, or the impact on everyone if security cooperation stops.
Sure, these would all be disastrous scenarios for us as well, but we'd be offering to help them avoid them. This is not a zero-sum game; I'm not sure they've quite got their heads around this point.
All this is likely true, but the risks are still (as I pointed out) asymmetric.
Just as importantly, and perhaps more so, neither side is motivated entirely or even primarily by economic considerations - if we were, we probably wouldn't be doing this. And those considerations are definitely seen more as a zero sum game. And there are plenty here who seem quite happy to accept a significant amount of pain for what they conceive of as a 'win'.
It's May's attempt to secure the Parliamentary majority denied her by the bloody voters.
She now has a guaranteed majority on every committee scrutinising Brexit
Awesome!
Good politics by the whips then
Indeed. The baloney about Corbyn being a PM in waiting is shown up as such by the fact that politics is largely about process, and sometimes rather technical process at that; Corbyn doesn't seem to have got to grips with that.
For all Miliband's faults, he understood Parly procedure. Probably because he didn't spend his entire career sniping from the back benches and preaching to choirs in Islington,
Actually, Trotskyites are usually very good at the rulebook, packing votes and pushing through agendas when they get the chance.
Theresa is setting an aeful lot of precedents for autocracy.
Wasn't that the Stalinists? Trotsky was notoriously poor at Party management. Uncle Joe not so.
I was thinking more of modern Trotskyite groups such as Militant.
For starters he didn't say that, he said that the people had had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms in their names saying they know what is best for everyone and who have been consistently wrong. And he seems to have been right about that, given the result, doesn't he? In fact we should recognise and revere him as an expert, surely?
How about this quote from Gove a couple of days before the vote:
'We have to be careful about historical comparisons, but Albert Einstein during the 1930s was denounced by the German authorities for being wrong and his theories were denounced, and one of the reasons of course he was denounced was because he was Jewish.
'They got 100 German scientists in the pay of the government to say that he was wrong and Einstein said: 'Look, if I was wrong, one would have been enough.'''
Einstein was a theoretical physicist, his work was essentially mathematics. It brings nothing to denounce mathematical theorems, but you do indeed need just one person to show that there is a flaw in the proof of the theorem.
Michael Gove is a politician, and politicians can just argue opposing views, cherry picking their data, precisely because there is no way to prove their theories. And that is what Gove has done with his poor anaology here.
Remain lost, because people had experienced the EU, and didn't like it.
If that's the case, why did the Leave campaign rely on egregious lying?
The Leave campaign weren't pied pipers who somehow bewitched 17m people into voting their way.
For years, there was public unhappiness at the EU. This crystallised when we were offered a referendum on the EU constitution at the 2005 election, and then denied it, when it was renamed the Lisbon Treaty. Your own side's bad faith undermined your cause.
There would never have been a referendum on EU membership if the public had been happy to be members of it.
There was public unhappiness largely because a few media and establishment plutocrats conducted a 30 year grooming exercise aimed at ridiculing and painting in a negative light virtually everything the EU did.
Why? Because they felt it threatened their power.
Murdoch's Times was and remains firmly pro-Remain.
These press conspiracy theories are tedious and idiotic...
Comments
I'd have thought typically a whip makes quite a lot of enemies?
Mind you, there was a report a while ago that Theresa wanted Gavin Williamson to be her successor (and that's why she got him to sign the DUP agreement) so you never know.
Maybe the coming reshuffle will see him moved to a senior Cabinet position...
So, no, not good faith, I'm afraid, either de facto or de jure.
Remind me again what the definition of insanity is?
Would it be legal under WTO rules, though?
Theresa is setting an aeful lot of precedents for autocracy.
We (the UK and PB) have this continuing tendency to construct a virtual EU in-our-heads, whether the Jerusalem of WilliamGlenn or the gehenna of Cornish_John, and be surprised by the gap between reality and fantasy. Why characterise it as "negotiating in bad faith"? It's never pretended to do anything other than what it is doing, and told us so from the very beginning. Which is the very opposite of "bad faith".
If no progress can be made within the framework of Barnier's mandate and the EU27's approach, then we might have to fall back on Plan B. That to my mind isn't walking out, but offering an alternative approach. Basically we'd say:
- As we have made clear from the start, we are leaving the EU, and therefore all existing obligations end on March 19th 2019. So you can put your demand for €100bn for nothing in return up your Juncker.
- However, as we have made clear from the start, we want a constructive and friendly relationship, in our capacity as the world's fifth or sixth largest economy which happens to be on your doorstep, which contains Europe's financial centre, which is a huge export market for you, which is vital to your security, and which sends millions of tourists over to you (are you listening Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France?). It would be a pity if something regrettable were to happen to your economies as a result of any unpleasantness, wouldn't it?
- So we propose an alternative to your approach. This involves guarantees to your citizens, continued close security and military cooperation, and a fat fee from us. In return we want no cliff edge, and a trade deal. Do you wanna play or not, given that no play means no dosh and big damage to your economies?
It's somewhat nuclear, but then so is their approach. There might be nothing to lose.
We can tell the Tories won by the copious blood streaming from the body of the victor.
They can still trade with each other tariff free our best card is a five they have all the aces.
Sure, these would all be disastrous scenarios for us as well, but we'd be offering to help them avoid them. This is not a zero-sum game; I'm not sure they've quite got their heads around this point.
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/09/iphone-x-will-cost-at-least-145-more-in-the-uk-than-the-us/
Now UK consumers paying ~10% premium, on top of the sh*t exchange rate.
Sucks to be British.
Some of us learned from 'Please Miss! It's not fair Miss! They cheated Miss!' in the school playground....others, evidently did not....
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Work-Begins-Soon-to-Bring-Haiti-into-Silk-Road-After-China-Invests-US30-billion-to-Develop-Infrastructure-20170901-0003.html
They are planning to invest $30bn in Haiti - whose GDP is $8bn....
Kind of redefines foreign aid - and suggests we might need to rethink how we spend our aid money. If this goes ahead as suggested, it could be transformative of one of the world's poorer societies.
https://twitter.com/PA/status/907640865082036231
1) preparations for third country status vis a vis customs union and single market commence on 1 January 2018
2) declaration that no monies will be paid post March 2019 unless trade deal is agreed
3) declaration that free movement will end, with no preferential status for new EU migrants
4) prepare meticulously for Brexit Day to avoid empty shelves/other signs of tangible disaster
5) change leader
6) go hell for leather for trade deals with Canada, Oz and NZ before May 2022.
I think there will be greater political benefit to the Tories (and thus the nation, by avoiding the disaster of a Corbyn government) to have Brexit concluded by 2019, even at the cost of an economic downturn, than allowing it to drag on towards the end of the Parliament.
Just as importantly, and perhaps more so, neither side is motivated entirely or even primarily by economic considerations - if we were, we probably wouldn't be doing this. And those considerations are definitely seen more as a zero sum game.
And there are plenty here who seem quite happy to accept a significant amount of pain for what they conceive of as a 'win'.
Michael Gove is a politician, and politicians can just argue opposing views, cherry picking their data, precisely because there is no way to prove their theories. And that is what Gove has done with his poor anaology here.
These press conspiracy theories are tedious and idiotic...