Okay, maybe I’m missing something here. How is saying “Rich man gives money to political campaign” antisemitic, just because the rich man happens to be Jewish? There was no mention of Judaism in the article at all.
Because completely different people, in completely different contexts, have said anti-Semitic things about him, is the argument, I think. There is a new flavour of smear here where if A says something, and B quite unconnectedly says something about the same thing, and you know very well there is no causal connection, you say A is *complicit* in what B says, and vv.
What is really happening is that the left is smarting so badly from being correctly accused of anti-Semitism, it has leapt at the chance of making incorrect allegations against other people.
But what a storm in a teacup. How many protocols do you get for £400,000 these days, after all? The story is "Foolish old man spends money foolishly," and anyone who thinks that "foolish old man" is a dog whistle allusion to a well-known 1930s nazi anti-Semitic trope, can keep it to themselves.
Just because you don't "get it" doesn't mean it hasn't caused a great deal of offence.
A lot of Trump supporters find nothing offensive in what he's said...
Okay, maybe I’m missing something here. How is saying “Rich man gives money to political campaign” antisemitic, just because the rich man happens to be Jewish? There was no mention of Judaism in the article at all.
Because completely different people, in completely different contexts, have said anti-Semitic things about him, is the argument, I think. There is a new flavour of smear here where if A says something, and B quite unconnectedly says something about the same thing, and you know very well there is no causal connection, you say A is *complicit* in what B says, and vv.
What is really happening is that the left is smarting so badly from being correctly accused of anti-Semitism, it has leapt at the chance of making incorrect allegations against other people.
But what a storm in a teacup. How many protocols do you get for £400,000 these days, after all? The story is "Foolish old man spends money foolishly," and anyone who thinks that "foolish old man" is a dog whistle allusion to a well-known 1930s nazi anti-Semitic trope, can keep it to themselves.
Just because you don't "get it" doesn't mean it hasn't caused a great deal of offence.
A lot of Trump supporters find nothing offensive in what he's said...
I don't see what "get it" means (nor why you write it in quotes)? Perhaps you could explain how you think the Telegraph would have reported this story if the facts were all the same except that George Soros were the verifiably goy, John Smith? What, specifically, would be different?
Okay, maybe I’m missing something here. How is saying “Rich man gives money to political campaign” antisemitic, just because the rich man happens to be Jewish? There was no mention of Judaism in the article at all.
Read the thread posted by Mr Meeks.
I read that, and all the comments under it, and all the comments here, and still don’t get it. The article made no mention of Jews or Jewishness, Rob Ford notes that other people who don’t like Soros don’t like him because he’s Jewish, but the Telegraph article doesn’t say any of that, only that a rich foreign man give a big cheque to a Remain campaign.
Must be too late for my frazzled brain, beer o’clock I think.
The style it is written in, talking about secret plots, etc, is like a paint-by-numbers version of writing about an international Jewish conspiracy, with the exception of not directly using the word Jewish.
Okay, maybe I’m missing something here. How is saying “Rich man gives money to political campaign” antisemitic, just because the rich man happens to be Jewish? There was no mention of Judaism in the article at all.
Read the thread posted by Mr Meeks.
I read that, and all the comments under it, and all the comments here, and still don’t get it. The article made no mention of Jews or Jewishness, Rob Ford notes that other people who don’t like Soros don’t like him because he’s Jewish, but the Telegraph article doesn’t say any of that, only that a rich foreign man give a big cheque to a Remain campaign.
Must be too late for my frazzled brain, beer o’clock I think.
The style it is written in, talking about secret plots, etc, is like a paint-by-numbers version of writing about an international Jewish conspiracy, with the exception of not directly using the word Jewish.
I actually don’t think Nick Timothy is anti-Semitic. I just think the writing here is incredibly careless, if not negligent.
Timothy, and the Daily Telegraph, have a responsibility not to pander to this sort of meme. Timothy is a smart chap, it’s just amazing he didn’t realise the kind of narrative he is reinforcing. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
It could of course be pointed out, I think(?), that significant roots of anti-Semitism lie not in actual dislike of Jews but dislike of ("rich") bankers. Whose profession historically tended to be dominated by Jews because their religion allowed it where others didn't. In other words many people didn't come to get a negative impression of bankers because they were Jews, but Jews because they were bankers.
Am I understanding this right? The UK wants third parties to PRETEND we have FTA and similar agreements with them, even though we haven't signed anything with those parties and the original agreements no longer apply to us?
I actually don’t think Nick Timothy is anti-Semitic. I just think the writing here is incredibly careless, if not negligent.
Do you think he's really given it any deep thought? His rhetoric about 'citizens of nowhere' and denials of anti-Semitism on the basis of being 'pro-Israel' certainly don't show much nuance about the position of British Jews in his worldview.
Am I understanding this right? The UK wants third parties to PRETEND we have FTA and similar agreements with them, even though we haven't signed anything with those parties and the original agreements no longer apply to us?
Am I understanding this right? The UK wants third parties to PRETEND we have FTA and similar agreements with them, even though we haven't signed anything with those parties and the original agreements no longer apply to us?
This is the technical note. It uses the Vienna Convention as a justification for why the third-parties should take the context of the transition period into account and act as if nothing has yet changed.
Okay, maybe I’m missing something here. How is saying “Rich man gives money to political campaign” antisemitic, just because the rich man happens to be Jewish? There was no mention of Judaism in the article at all.
Read the thread posted by Mr Meeks.
I read that, and all the comments under it, and all the comments here, and still don’t get it. The article made no mention of Jews or Jewishness, Rob Ford notes that other people who don’t like Soros don’t like him because he’s Jewish, but the Telegraph article doesn’t say any of that, only that a rich foreign man give a big cheque to a Remain campaign.
Must be too late for my frazzled brain, beer o’clock I think.
The style it is written in, talking about secret plots, etc, is like a paint-by-numbers version of writing about an international Jewish conspiracy, with the exception of not directly using the word Jewish.
Well, yes, and calling anyone a twat is definitely anti semitic, because "twat" is obviously "Jewish twat" with the word "Jewish" left out.
Am I understanding this right? The UK wants third parties to PRETEND we have FTA and similar agreements with them, even though we haven't signed anything with those parties and the original agreements no longer apply to us?
This is the technical note. It uses the Vienna Convention as a justification for why the third-parties should take the context of the transition period into account and act as if nothing has yet changed.
Am I understanding this right? The UK wants third parties to PRETEND we have FTA and similar agreements with them, even though we haven't signed anything with those parties and the original agreements no longer apply to us?
Yep. Imagine many countries will agree - in exchange for a few favours...
To be clear about this, the third parties literally won't agree, because of lack of time or it's too complicated? The UK wants them to pretend they have agreed, as I understand, but none of this has legal status. As these will cover sensitive topics like nuclear fuel, personal data I can see problems. It makes planning a nightmare I would have thought. Say you are an airline plying the highly competitive trans Atlantic airline. Your competitors can go to a US court and get you shut down because your flights are illegal. Or you are a British company trying to get a remedy in a foreign territory under a treaty that doesn't exist.
George Soros has probably been the subject of more anti-Semitic abuse than any other single living person. Of course it has to be mentioned in the context of allegations of "secret plots" about him.
Even using "probably" you can come nowhere near being able to justify the first sentence. Think you might benefit from thinking.
Am I understanding this right? The UK wants third parties to PRETEND we have FTA and similar agreements with them, even though we haven't signed anything with those parties and the original agreements no longer apply to us?
Yep. Imagine many countries will agree - in exchange for a few favours...
To be clear about this, the third parties literally won't agree, because of lack of time or it's too complicated? The UK wants them to pretend they have agreed, as I understand, but none of this has legal status. As these will cover sensitive topics like nuclear fuel, personal data I can see problems. It makes planning a nightmare I would have thought. Say you are an airline plying the highly competitive trans Atlantic airline. Your competitors can go to a US court and get you shut down because your flights are illegal. Or you are a British company trying to get a remedy in a foreign territory under a treaty that doesn't exist.
I remember a discussion with mr Meeks on this issue. I wondered whether we really would see flights grounded/similar or whether we would just all agree to quietly ignore the law.
George Soros has probably been the subject of more anti-Semitic abuse than any other single living person. Of course it has to be mentioned in the context of allegations of "secret plots" about him.
Brexit is essentially a kind of conspiracy theory (those dastardly Europeans bending our bananas! Those terrible economists forecasting doom and gloom!), and so unsurprising that parts of the Brexit movement will end up flirting with anti-Semitism.
Shame it happens to be on the front of the Telegraph, though.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle: oak trees are trees, beeches are trees, therefore oaks are beeches.
Brexiters are conspiracy theorists, anti Semites are conspiracy theorists, therefore brexiters are anti-Semites.
Not really because oaks and beeches are mutually exclusive categories, whereas Brexitry and anti-semitism —- not so much.
You can't really believe this. If so then you'll have to re-christen yourself "Sleep Walker".
Am I understanding this right? The UK wants third parties to PRETEND we have FTA and similar agreements with them, even though we haven't signed anything with those parties and the original agreements no longer apply to us?
Yep. Imagine many countries will agree - in exchange for a few favours...
To be clear about this, the third parties literally won't agree, because of lack of time or it's too complicated? The UK wants them to pretend they have agreed, as I understand, but none of this has legal status. As these will cover sensitive topics like nuclear fuel, personal data I can see problems. It makes planning a nightmare I would have thought. Say you are an airline plying the highly competitive trans Atlantic airline. Your competitors can go to a US court and get you shut down because your flights are illegal. Or you are a British company trying to get a remedy in a foreign territory under a treaty that doesn't exist.
Delving deeper, it seems the third parties still need to agree. In that sense nothing has changed. Instead of agreeing a new text, they agree to adopt the existing text with substitutions like "for 'EU member state' read 'UK as a vassal state of the EU' "
One of the great problems with the English public school system is that it teaches immensely privileged young men with mediocre minds that they are the elite. The country pays the price.
I was thinking the Moggster, Daniel Hannan, Seamas Milne and various other prominent Brexit loons. Have you caused harm to the country?
One of my cousins invented the null reference. Does that count?
Tony?
Yep. He calls it his billion dollar mistake...
He’s a little harsh on himself with that quote, there’s many worse things in computing than null references.
How many more geniuses are there in your family?
Does inventing the banker’s draft and the cheque count?
Edit: and my grandfather was a Fellow of All Souls
We've heard something like this before, haven't we?
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart...
As I was saying to Quincy Jones and the Duchess of Wessex just the other day —- the only reason I come to PB is for Charles’s hilarious name dropping.
I was asked a question and i answered it. At least partially - I didn’t mention the gardener, the antiquarian or the painter all of whom are well known in their areas of expertise.
No duds at all
Plenty of them - one was so duddish that we shipped him to New Zealand where he went bankrupt running a sheep farm...
Presumably chose his occupation so that he wouldn't miss the girls he left behind
Okay, maybe I’m missing something here. How is saying “Rich man gives money to political campaign” antisemitic, just because the rich man happens to be Jewish? There was no mention of Judaism in the article at all.
Read the thread posted by Mr Meeks.
I read that, and all the comments under it, and all the comments here, and still don’t get it. The article made no mention of Jews or Jewishness, Rob Ford notes that other people who don’t like Soros don’t like him because he’s Jewish, but the Telegraph article doesn’t say any of that, only that a rich foreign man give a big cheque to a Remain campaign.
Must be too late for my frazzled brain, beer o’clock I think.
The style it is written in, talking about secret plots, etc, is like a paint-by-numbers version of writing about an international Jewish conspiracy, with the exception of not directly using the word Jewish.
The great thing about dog whistles is that usually only dogs can hear them, and unless you're actually caught puffing strenuously with whistle in gob, you can deny getting the pooches worked up.
Okay, maybe I’m missing something here. How is saying “Rich man gives money to political campaign” antisemitic, just because the rich man happens to be Jewish? There was no mention of Judaism in the article at all.
Read the thread posted by Mr Meeks.
I read that, and all the comments under it, and all the comments here, and still don’t get it. The article made no mention of Jews or Jewishness, Rob Ford notes that other people who don’t like Soros don’t like him because he’s Jewish, but the Telegraph article doesn’t say any of that, only that a rich foreign man give a big cheque to a Remain campaign.
Must be too late for my frazzled brain, beer o’clock I think.
The style it is written in, talking about secret plots, etc, is like a paint-by-numbers version of writing about an international Jewish conspiracy, with the exception of not directly using the word Jewish.
The great thing about dog whistles is that usually only dogs can hear them, and unless you're actually caught puffing strenuously with whistle in gob, you can deny getting the pooches worked up.
Yes, hence the metaphor. But tell us: if you say "international Jewish conspiracy" that's anti-semitic, and if you say "international conspiracy" that's just a way of saying "international Jewish conspiracy" in a dog whistleish way, duh, OBVIOUSLY; so what is the correct way of referring to a conspiracy whose only relevant quality is that it is international?
Am I understanding this right? The UK wants third parties to PRETEND we have FTA and similar agreements with them, even though we haven't signed anything with those parties and the original agreements no longer apply to us?
This is the technical note. It uses the Vienna Convention as a justification for why the third-parties should take the context of the transition period into account and act as if nothing has yet changed.
Am I understanding this right? The UK wants third parties to PRETEND we have FTA and similar agreements with them, even though we haven't signed anything with those parties and the original agreements no longer apply to us?
This is the technical note. It uses the Vienna Convention as a justification for why the third-parties should take the context of the transition period into account and act as if nothing has yet changed.
Okay, maybe I’m missing something here. How is saying “Rich man gives money to political campaign” antisemitic, just because the rich man happens to be Jewish? There was no mention of Judaism in the article at all.
Read the thread posted by Mr Meeks.
I read that, and all the comments under it, and all the comments here, and still don’t get it. The article made no mention of Jews or Jewishness, Rob Ford notes that other people who don’t like Soros don’t like him because he’s Jewish, but the Telegraph article doesn’t say any of that, only that a rich foreign man give a big cheque to a Remain campaign.
Must be too late for my frazzled brain, beer o’clock I think.
The style it is written in, talking about secret plots, etc, is like a paint-by-numbers version of writing about an international Jewish conspiracy, with the exception of not directly using the word Jewish.
The great thing about dog whistles is that usually only dogs can hear them, and unless you're actually caught puffing strenuously with whistle in gob, you can deny getting the pooches worked up.
Yes, hence the metaphor. But tell us: if you say "international Jewish conspiracy" that's anti-semitic, and if you say "international conspiracy" that's just a way of saying "international Jewish conspiracy" in a dog whistleish way, duh, OBVIOUSLY; so what is the correct way of referring to a conspiracy whose only relevant quality is that it is international?
Can you give an example of this nothing but international conspiracy of which you speak?
Okay, maybe I’m missing something here. How is saying “Rich man gives money to political campaign” antisemitic, just because the rich man happens to be Jewish? There was no mention of Judaism in the article at all.
Read the thread posted by Mr Meeks.
I read that, and all the comments under it, and all the comments here, and still don’t get it. The article made no mention of Jews or Jewishness, Rob Ford notes that other people who don’t like Soros don’t like him because he’s Jewish, but the Telegraph article doesn’t say any of that, only that a rich foreign man give a big cheque to a Remain campaign.
Must be too late for my frazzled brain, beer o’clock I think.
The style it is written in, talking about secret plots, etc, is like a paint-by-numbers version of writing about an international Jewish conspiracy, with the exception of not directly using the word Jewish.
The great thing about dog whistles is that usually only dogs can hear them, and unless you're actually caught puffing strenuously with whistle in gob, you can deny getting the pooches worked up.
Yes, hence the metaphor. But tell us: if you say "international Jewish conspiracy" that's anti-semitic, and if you say "international conspiracy" that's just a way of saying "international Jewish conspiracy" in a dog whistleish way, duh, OBVIOUSLY; so what is the correct way of referring to a conspiracy whose only relevant quality is that it is international?
Can you give an example of this nothing but international conspiracy of which you speak?
The alleged interference by Russia in UK and us elections and referendums.
Am I understanding this right? The UK wants third parties to PRETEND we have FTA and similar agreements with them, even though we haven't signed anything with those parties and the original agreements no longer apply to us?
This is the technical note. It uses the Vienna Convention as a justification for why the third-parties should take the context of the transition period into account and act as if nothing has yet changed.
Jeremy Corbyn told Michel Barnier that he was open to keeping Britain in the customs union after Brexit, a memo circulated to European nations suggests.
The Labour leader met Mr Barnier, the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator, in London on Monday, where Mr Corbyn promised to run the Brexit negotiations “very differently” if he came to power - and dangled a raft of possible concessions to the EU.
According to a memo of the meeting, drawn up after a debrief between Mr Barnier and ambassadors from the other 27 EU nations, Mr Corbyn said that he was willing to allow the UK to submit to the rulings of the European Court of Justice should he become prime minister.
The document, seen by The Daily Telegraph, also states that Mr Corbyn said he could offer a “unilateral guarantee” on the rights of EU citizens during transition.
Okay, maybe I’m missing something here. How is saying “Rich man gives money to political campaign” antisemitic, just because the rich man happens to be Jewish? There was no mention of Judaism in the article at all.
Read the thread posted by Mr Meeks.
I read that, and all the comments under it, and all the comments here, and still don’t get it. The article made no mention of Jews or Jewishness, Rob Ford notes that other people who don’t like Soros don’t like him because he’s Jewish, but the Telegraph article doesn’t say any of that, only that a rich foreign man give a big cheque to a Remain campaign.
Must be too late for my frazzled brain, beer o’clock I think.
The style it is written in, talking about secret plots, etc, is like a paint-by-numbers version of writing about an international Jewish conspiracy, with the exception of not directly using the word Jewish.
The great thing about dog whistles is that usually only dogs can hear them, and unless you're actually caught puffing strenuously with whistle in gob, you can deny getting the pooches worked up.
Yes, hence the metaphor. But tell us: if you say "international Jewish conspiracy" that's anti-semitic, and if you say "international conspiracy" that's just a way of saying "international Jewish conspiracy" in a dog whistleish way, duh, OBVIOUSLY; so what is the correct way of referring to a conspiracy whose only relevant quality is that it is international?
Yes you are right.
If you are a seven year old.
If you are a grown up with a lifetime of being able to contextualise things you read and hear, then not so much.
Jeremy Corbyn told Michel Barnier that he was open to keeping Britain in the customs union after Brexit, a memo circulated to European nations suggests.
The Labour leader met Mr Barnier, the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator, in London on Monday, where Mr Corbyn promised to run the Brexit negotiations “very differently” if he came to power - and dangled a raft of possible concessions to the EU.
According to a memo of the meeting, drawn up after a debrief between Mr Barnier and ambassadors from the other 27 EU nations, Mr Corbyn said that he was willing to allow the UK to submit to the rulings of the European Court of Justice should he become prime minister.
The document, seen by The Daily Telegraph, also states that Mr Corbyn said he could offer a “unilateral guarantee” on the rights of EU citizens during transition.
Comments
A lot of Trump supporters find nothing offensive in what he's said...
Timothy, and the Daily Telegraph, have a responsibility not to pander to this sort of meme. Timothy is a smart chap, it’s just amazing he didn’t realise the kind of narrative he is reinforcing. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/680366/Technical_Note_-_International_Agreements_in_the_Implementation_Period_-_CLEAN.pdf
This means nothing to me.
Those pesky international conspirators.
I wondered whether we really would see flights grounded/similar or whether we would just all agree to quietly ignore the law.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/961710555764543489
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCmyZcBnC2M
http://www.aihr.com.au/blog/celebrity-hair-transplant-elton-johns-hair-restoration-success
Jeremy Corbyn told Michel Barnier that he was open to keeping Britain in the customs union after Brexit, a memo circulated to European nations suggests.
The Labour leader met Mr Barnier, the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator, in London on Monday, where Mr Corbyn promised to run the Brexit negotiations “very differently” if he came to power - and dangled a raft of possible concessions to the EU.
According to a memo of the meeting, drawn up after a debrief between Mr Barnier and ambassadors from the other 27 EU nations, Mr Corbyn said that he was willing to allow the UK to submit to the rulings of the European Court of Justice should he become prime minister.
The document, seen by The Daily Telegraph, also states that Mr Corbyn said he could offer a “unilateral guarantee” on the rights of EU citizens during transition.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/08/eu-memo-barnier-meeting-raises-questions-jeremy-corbyns-brexit/
It's funny that everyone assume Don's bawheidedness was at the front when in fact it was all going on at the back.
If you are a seven year old.
If you are a grown up with a lifetime of being able to contextualise things you read and hear, then not so much.
NEW THREAD
Except possibly working for the BBC.... as Mike Smithson did....