But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
The argument I've read against that is that Arabs and North Africans were kindly slaveowners, compared to Europeans.
I'm sure some numpty was on here earlier in the week telling us NO was going to win but it really looks like a big YES win and I'm personally delighted.
From there to another excellent Saturday piece from David for which, as always. many thanks.
I'm not a friend or supporter of the Conservative Party and its various factions or cliques. I already see someone has put up the old canard of "a new leader and this is how they can win a majority". Everybody, it seems, knows how to do politics except the politicians.
May's position remains predicated on TINA (despite rumoured "dream teams" of Gove and Davidson (who isn't even an MP yet)) and the presence of Jeremy Corbyn. He remains a huge asset for the Conservatives and an electorally and politically polarising figure which maintains the current holding pattern.
Those who have little or no faith or confidence in May won't move because of the fear of Corbyn. She can, in effect, do pretty much what she likes because of that Sword of Damocles hanging over us (apparently).
Yet the hair might be snapped if the public don't take kindly to another act of Conservative self-indulgence. As David explains, the Government itself (with DUP support) has a majority and the only circumstances under which I could have imagined ALL the opposition parties (including the DUP) in the same lobby would have been a proposal to keep the FOBT limit unchanged but Matt Hancock has shot that fox (though grumblings on the Conservative backbenches continue it seems).
As to the A50 agreement, the question is how many Conservative (and Labour) MPs are going to defy their party on this.
But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
I see where you’re going with that. Though the West would likely be a net loser on any such calculation, the arguments would take a century or so to resolve. Would be a nice earner for the actuaries and lawyers, though.
I suspect that few would argue that staying in the common market and customs union is leaving the EU. And in that case, there's no way the EU could allow us to evade FOM - it would be political suicide to give us that degree of special treatment. Yet many politicians are seriously arguing that.
I can understand an opposition to Brexit arguing for that but it's not even a cunning plan.
Pretending you're leaving when you're not seems to be a backstop, even though it's transparent nonsense. It's what they're reduced to now they realise a second referendum would be political suicide.
Better to go with Mr Meeks' cunning plan … try Brexit and see the result
Mr. Ace, an interesting suggestion. Except I can't see the Scottish pound being accepted south of the border (and, presumably, the same the other way).
Mr. G, but the financial sector can't just live in stasis for an unspecified number of years. Do you not think that using the pound without a currency union would have a significantly detrimental effect upon the Scottish financial sector?
They seem to be managing the journey into the Brexit unknown adequately.
Mr. B, not to worry. We can then claim against Germany for two World Wars, Italy for the Romans, Germany (again)/Denmark for the Saxons, Angles and Jutes, Scandinavia for the Vikings, etc etc etc.
It'd ridiculous to dredge up the past in a glorified guilty trip for the purpose of self-righteous money-grubbing greed.
Miss Cyclefree, it is wryly ridiculous that so many bleat about the West and slavery yet neglect Arab slavery, or the Africans selling other Africans in the first place. For some, it does seem to be about skin colour.
I've never understood the tremendously guilty whites who feel bad about slavery. It ended centuries before they were born. People who were never slaves blaming people who never owned or trade slaves for slavery centuries ago just seems nuts to me.
Agreed. I am not going to feel guilty about what people in previous ages did. No-one in history has entirely clean hands. No-one. The desire for victimhood is absurd and infantilising and shows a remarkable lack of self-respect, remarkably at odds with the claims for dignity and respect from others. We would do better to deal with the problems we face now rather than wailing about historical events on the basis of, usually, factual inaccuracy and slanted agendas.
There are some occasions when symbolic gestures help but the “woe is us” (or rather the “woe is our eight-times-grandfather”) brigade are a childish nuisance who irritate rather than help.
Mr. B, it's quite difficult, well, for me at least, to see how monopolies-type legislation can be applied to the internet. With physical shops you can have a ceiling for a sector (say, 25-35% of supermarkets belonging to one chain) but the ephemeral nature of the internet makes that rather tricky.
On Hamilton: lots of drivers want to drive for Ferrari just because of the history. I'd still be surprised if Vettel gave Hamilton the nod.
Can't believe either whatever Hamilton says in public that he would actually accept that situation in reality. He's an egotist and a prima donna. No way will he accept being second fiddle again. Look how sour he was with Rosberg and Alonso, and neither of them were as good as Vettel is.
In justice to him as a multiple world champion and the second most successful driver of all time there seems no reason why he should accept such a position.
The challenge of taking on a four time world champion in equal machinery. Of course he’s an egotist - almost all F1 drivers are (with the exception of the great Jim Clark) - but that’s all the more reason to take on the challenge.
Neither he nor Vettel are at their best when getting beaten, so it would be an interesting test for the team manager....
I’d imagine that having Hamilton and Vettel in the same team would be close to unmanageable, as bad as Senna and Prost were in 1988 and 1989, and would have a reasonable chance of finishing up the same way.
Would make Red Bull’s little local difficulties in Baku look like a children’s playground argument in comparison.
Miss Cyclefree, it is wryly ridiculous that so many bleat about the West and slavery yet neglect Arab slavery, or the Africans selling other Africans in the first place. For some, it does seem to be about skin colour.
I've never understood the tremendously guilty whites who feel bad about slavery. It ended centuries before they were born. People who were never slaves blaming people who never owned or trade slaves for slavery centuries ago just seems nuts to me.
Agreed. I am not going to feel guilty about what people in previous ages did. No-one in history has entirely clean hands. No-one. The desire for victimhood is absurd and infantilising and shows a remarkable lack of self-respect, remarkably at odds with the claims for dignity and respect from others. We would do better to deal with the problems we face now rather than wailing about historical events on the basis of, usually, factual inaccuracy and slanted agendas.
There are some occasions when symbolic gestures help but the “woe is us” (or rather the “woe is our eight-times-grandfather”) brigade are a childish nuisance who irritate rather than help.
We're all descended from both oppressors and victims, and sometimes the same people were both oppressors and victims.
But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
The argument I've read against that is that Arabs and North Africans were kindly slaveowners, compared to Europeans.
Which is bollocks.
People should study this more The horrific North African slave raids on Devon, Cornwall, Ireland and Wales are an untold tale of misery from the 16th to the 18th Centuries.
Not while Arlene Foster remains in charge, she takes a rather different view to Leo Varadkar on these things
it's quite funny that the DUP is the last line of defence for the Catholic church
Especially as most of Sinn Fein are now pro choice and pro gay marriage despite the professed Catholicism of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams.
Indeed the DUP is now closer to Poland's governing socially conservative Law and Justice Party than any of the main parties elsewhere in the UK and in the Republic of Ireland.
Poland of course is now the only European country along with Northern Ireland where abortion is still illegal and one of the few European countries along with Northern Ireland and Italy and Switzerland and a few other Eastern European nations that have not yet legalised gay marriage
the dynamics of this could be fun
SF have shifted their position 180 degrees in the last 20 years on social issues
however since this is a devolved issue they cant do anything until they return to Stormont as its a devolved issue
they must now be tempted as I reckon repeal will carry up north and would seriously wrongfoot the DUP
That would also mean recognising Arlene Foster as First Minister again and while repeal and gay marriage would probably carry, Catholics in the North are now slightly more socially conservative than those in the South I think and Protestants significantly more so
But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
Which Arab and African states that exist now are direct inheritors of African and Arab kingdoms etc of the 17th-19th centuries? Conveniently for any other claims, the UK was in existence for almost all of the period of the Atlantic slave trade.
But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
Which Arab and African states that exist now are direct inheritors of African and Arab kingdoms etc of the 17th-19th centuries? Conveniently for any other claims, the UK was in existence for almost all of the period of the Atlantic slave trade.
Mr. B, it's quite difficult, well, for me at least, to see how monopolies-type legislation can be applied to the internet. With physical shops you can have a ceiling for a sector (say, 25-35% of supermarkets belonging to one chain) but the ephemeral nature of the internet makes that rather tricky.
On Hamilton: lots of drivers want to drive for Ferrari just because of the history. I'd still be surprised if Vettel gave Hamilton the nod.
Can't believe either whatever Hamilton says in public that he would actually accept that situation in reality. He's an egotist and a prima donna. No way will he accept being second fiddle again. Look how sour he was with Rosberg and Alonso, and neither of them were as good as Vettel is.
In justice to him as a multiple world champion and the second most successful driver of all time there seems no reason why he should accept such a position.
The challenge of taking on a four time world champion in equal machinery. Of course he’s an egotist - almost all F1 drivers are (with the exception of the great Jim Clark) - but that’s all the more reason to take on the challenge.
Neither he nor Vettel are at their best when getting beaten, so it would be an interesting test for the team manager....
I’d imagine that having Hamilton and Vettel in the same team would be close to unmanageable, as bad as Senna and Prost were in 1988 and 1989, and would have a reasonable chance of finishing up the same way.
Would make Red Bull’s little local difficulties in Baku look like a children’s playground argument in comparison.
They claim in Iceland that they only converted to Christianity in 1000AD because of the effect of all their female Irish slaves they'd taken to bring up their children.
I suspect that few would argue that staying in the common market and customs union is leaving the EU. And in that case, there's no way the EU could allow us to evade FOM - it would be political suicide to give us that degree of special treatment. Yet many politicians are seriously arguing that.
I can understand an opposition to Brexit arguing for that but it's not even a cunning plan.
Pretending you're leaving when you're not seems to be a backstop, even though it's transparent nonsense. It's what they're reduced to now they realise a second referendum would be political suicide.
Better to go with Mr Meeks' cunning plan … try Brexit and see the result
So long as we leave the single market then we can end FOM, regardless of whether we stay in the customs union.
Plus far from 'special treatment' the UK has had a more lax approach to FOM than most EU nations thanks to Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as most other EU nations did up to 2011
But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
Which Arab and African states that exist now are direct inheritors of African and Arab kingdoms etc of the 17th-19th centuries? Conveniently for any other claims, the UK was in existence for almost all of the period of the Atlantic slave trade.
And, to be fair, the UK bears some responsibility for the non-survival of quite a few of those kingdoms...
But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
Which Arab and African states that exist now are direct inheritors of African and Arab kingdoms etc of the 17th-19th centuries? Conveniently for any other claims, the UK was in existence for almost all of the period of the Atlantic slave trade.
Morocco?
They've got big pals (another enthusiastic slaving nation coincidentally).
'The Moroccan–American Treaty of Friendship, signed in 1786, stands as the U.S.'s oldest non-broken friendship treaty'
Mr. B, most of history has been nations trying to conquer other nations. Ours was better at it than most. Feeling guilty about it is as dumb as a resident of Rome apologising to modern day Turks for defeating Antiochus at the Battle of Magnesia.
Insider News. My nephew, in a move calculated to stimulate maximum disapproval from his uncle, joined the RAF and was recently in receipt of his swift wings on 3FTS at Cranwell. He has been told to expect a posting to Voyager fleet. He has also been told by me that I expect full disclosure of everything he hears when he is crewing ZZ336 (May Force One). Stay tuned...
But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
Which Arab and African states that exist now are direct inheritors of African and Arab kingdoms etc of the 17th-19th centuries? Conveniently for any other claims, the UK was in existence for almost all of the period of the Atlantic slave trade.
Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, have all been political entities for a long time, or are successors to the Ottoman Empire. The upper classes of West African countries are frequently the descendants of the chiefs, kings and emirs of the past.
I think that the DUP risk both their own survival and even the Union unless they move swiftly on both this issue and on Gay marriage. I would be happy for a united Ireland if supported but their current situation is unrealistic - they are massivley out of step with both the RoUK and the Republic.
I think that the DUP risk both their own survival and even the Union unless they move swiftly on both this issue and on Gay marriage. I would be happy for a united Ireland if supported but their current situation is unrealistic - they are massivley out of step with both the RoUK and the Republic.
Mr. G, you don't believe Scotland using the pound (should an independence referendum result in the UK splitting) without a currency union would damage the financial sector?
The Growth Commission Report solution to that is simple.
All the banks would leave.
You can't damage the financial sector if you don't have one.
But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
Which Arab and African states that exist now are direct inheritors of African and Arab kingdoms etc of the 17th-19th centuries? Conveniently for any other claims, the UK was in existence for almost all of the period of the Atlantic slave trade.
Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, have all been political entities for a long time, or are successors to the Ottoman Empire. The upper classes of West African countries are frequently the descendants of the chiefs, kings and emirs of the past.
The descendants of monarchs and aristos should be sued for slaving reparations? I'm cool with that.
I disagree that another General Election will not bring a Conservative majority.
In the 2017 General Election the Conservatives were massively ahead in the opinion polls and looking very likely to get circa 400 seats - and then Theresa May started making her 'staged appearances' and every time she opened her mouth you could feel the support ebbing away. The campaign from the start was poorly organised, poorly led, and indeed if ever anyone wanted to know how to lose an election they should examine May and the Conservative campaign of 2017.
With a new leader the Conservatives could easily win a clear majority at the next General Election as long the new leader is a true Brexit supporter and has the ability to communicate with the electorate. These conditions narrows down the field greatly, although the second condition could be somewhat reduced in importance if the new Conservative leader had a team of such who could do it for them, though this would be risky.
The new leader should concentrate first on the EU referendum, tie in the Conservative vote, then explain how Labour's policies would turn the UK into a Nicaragua+++. The electorate are neither dumb nor stupid, when they hear such common sense and evident truths the 'swing voters' will overwhelmingly go Conservative.
But as said above it requires a new leader, someone who will expel from the Conservative Party those who vote against the very major promises made in the manifesto - and thereby give the electorate a belief that what is promised in the manifesto will be adhered to.
As I said to an earlier poster with similar views there is not a shred of electoral or polling evidence to back up your wishful thoughts. At best a GE would produce a similar result.
Insider News. My nephew, in a move calculated to stimulate maximum disapproval from his uncle, joined the RAF and was recently in receipt of his swift wings on 3FTS at Cranwell. He has been told to expect a posting to Voyager fleet. He has also been told by me that I expect full disclosure of everything he hears when he is crewing ZZ336 (May Force One). Stay tuned...
Congratulations to the boy on getting his wings. I’m sure deep down you’re a very proud uncle!
I think that the DUP risk both their own survival and even the Union unless they move swiftly on both this issue and on Gay marriage. I would be happy for a united Ireland if supported but their current situation is unrealistic - they are massivley out of step with both the RoUK and the Republic.
But, are they out of step with their own voters?
The Northern Irish are as comfortable with gay marriage as the English are. The DUP’s voters will be divided quite evenly on this. (I haven’t seen poling on abortion.)
The risk for the DUP is that while the assembly is suspended some Westminster backbencher introduces a bill on gay marriage or abortion. The ensuing fracas would not be good for DUP unity.
But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
The argument I've read against that is that Arabs and North Africans were kindly slaveowners, compared to Europeans.
Which is bollocks.
People should study this more The horrific North African slave raids on Devon, Cornwall, Ireland and Wales are an untold tale of misery from the 16th to the 18th Centuries.
The Brexit situation is akin to a General Election in which one party, let's say the LDs, achieved an overall majority but the media/elite/the chattering classes refused to accept it.
Bollocks.
If the LDs won the election, they would have a manifesto to be implemented.
One of the reasons for our present malaise is the snake oil salesmen who craved our votes during the campaign disowned it at the moment of victory.
Mr. P, it was a startling omission from Smith's report, and inexplicable given she went right to the edge and then left out the rather obvious matter of the implications of using the pound without a currency union.
Mr. B, it's quite difficult, well, for me at least, to see how monopolies-type legislation can be applied to the internet. With physical shops you can have a ceiling for a sector (say, 25-35% of supermarkets belonging to one chain) but the ephemeral nature of the internet makes that rather tricky.
On Hamilton: lots of drivers want to drive for Ferrari just because of the history. I'd still be surprised if Vettel gave Hamilton the nod.
Can't believe either whatever Hamilton says in public that he would actually accept that situation in reality. He's an egotist and a prima donna. No way will he accept being second fiddle again. Look how sour he was with Rosberg and Alonso, and neither of them were as good as Vettel is.
In justice to him as a multiple world champion and the second most successful driver of all time there seems no reason why he should accept such a position.
The challenge of taking on a four time world champion in equal machinery. Of course he’s an egotist - almost all F1 drivers are (with the exception of the great Jim Clark) - but that’s all the more reason to take on the challenge.
Neither he nor Vettel are at their best when getting beaten, so it would be an interesting test for the team manager....
I’d imagine that having Hamilton and Vettel in the same team would be close to unmanageable, as bad as Senna and Prost were in 1988 and 1989, and would have a reasonable chance of finishing up the same way.
Would make Red Bull’s little local difficulties in Baku look like a children’s playground argument in comparison.
I’d pay to watch it. Bring it on !
Oh, it would be great sport, and the audience numbers would be through the roof. A complete nightmare for the team managers to hold it all together though.
Miss Cyclefree, it is wryly ridiculous that so many bleat about the West and slavery yet neglect Arab slavery, or the Africans selling other Africans in the first place. For some, it does seem to be about skin colour.
I've never understood the tremendously guilty whites who feel bad about slavery. It ended centuries before they were born. People who were never slaves blaming people who never owned or trade slaves for slavery centuries ago just seems nuts to me.
Agreed. I am not going to feel guilty about what people in previous ages did. No-one in history has entirely clean hands. No-one. The desire for victimhood is absurd and infantilising and shows a remarkable lack of self-respect, remarkably at odds with the claims for dignity and respect from others. We would do better to deal with the problems we face now rather than wailing about historical events on the basis of, usually, factual inaccuracy and slanted agendas.
There are some occasions when symbolic gestures help but the “woe is us” (or rather the “woe is our eight-times-grandfather”) brigade are a childish nuisance who irritate rather than help.
We're all descended from both oppressors and victims, and sometimes the same people were both oppressors and victims.
It is also supremely arrogant to assume that today's beliefs are somehow superior to all that has gone before. - I can guarantee that centuries down the road will consider us all mindless savages.
Miss Cyclefree, it is wryly ridiculous that so many bleat about the West and slavery yet neglect Arab slavery, or the Africans selling other Africans in the first place. For some, it does seem to be about skin colour.
I've never understood the tremendously guilty whites who feel bad about slavery. It ended centuries before they were born. People who were never slaves blaming people who never owned or trade slaves for slavery centuries ago just seems nuts to me.
Agreed. I am not going to feel guilty about what people in previous ages did. No-one in history has entirely clean hands. No-one. The desire for victimhood is absurd and infantilising and shows a remarkable lack of self-respect, remarkably at odds with the claims for dignity and respect from others. We would do better to deal with the problems we face now rather than wailing about historical events on the basis of, usually, factual inaccuracy and slanted agendas.
There are some occasions when symbolic gestures help but the “woe is us” (or rather the “woe is our eight-times-grandfather”) brigade are a childish nuisance who irritate rather than help.
Well said, particularly on how it can infantilise entire nations, while accepting symbolic gestures can be appropriate, so this isn't about never acknowledging the less salubrious aspects of a nation's past. Continued institutional injustices impacting on race etc can and should be addressed, not dismissed, but the focus on centuries old grievances I would argue would make addressing such things more difficult.
Some aspects of history are less fashionable than others.
Likewise, Anglo-Saxons had a large slave trade which William the Conqueror ended. He'd probably get more credit for that if he hadn't tainted his legacy with the Harrying/Harrowing of the North.
I think that the DUP risk both their own survival and even the Union unless they move swiftly on both this issue and on Gay marriage. I would be happy for a united Ireland if supported but their current situation is unrealistic - they are massivley out of step with both the RoUK and the Republic.
But, are they out of step with their own voters?
The Northern Irish are as comfortable with gay marriage as the English are. The DUP’s voters will be divided quite evenly on this. (I haven’t seen poling on abortion.)
The risk for the DUP is that while the assembly is suspended some Westminster backbencher introduces a bill on gay marriage or abortion. The ensuing fracas would not be good for DUP unity.
My impression is the DUP would probably only put up token opposition to gay marriage, but would dig in their heels over abortion.
I think that the DUP risk both their own survival and even the Union unless they move swiftly on both this issue and on Gay marriage. I would be happy for a united Ireland if supported but their current situation is unrealistic - they are massivley out of step with both the RoUK and the Republic.
But, are they out of step with their own voters?
I've not seen the polling but I'd find it surprising if views in the north have not changed significantly in recent times. However, they can of course seek to hold the line - I just think it is not in their interest long-term to do so.
I think that the DUP risk both their own survival and even the Union unless they move swiftly on both this issue and on Gay marriage. I would be happy for a united Ireland if supported but their current situation is unrealistic - they are massivley out of step with both the RoUK and the Republic.
But, are they out of step with their own voters?
The Northern Irish are as comfortable with gay marriage as the English are. The DUP’s voters will be divided quite evenly on this. (I haven’t seen poling on abortion.)
The risk for the DUP is that while the assembly is suspended some Westminster backbencher introduces a bill on gay marriage or abortion. The ensuing fracas would not be good for DUP unity.
My impression is the DUP would probably only put up token opposition to gay marriage, but would dig in their heels over abortion.
58% in NI want abortion decriminalised according to this poll, though 72% want it legalised in the case of rape or incest
I disagree that another General Election will not bring a Conservative majority.
In the 2017 General Election the Conservatives were massively ahead in the opinion polls and looking very likely to get circa 400 seats - and then Theresa May started making her 'staged appearances' and every time she opened her mouth you could feel the support ebbing away. The campaign from the start was poorly organised, poorly led, and indeed if ever anyone wanted to know how to lose an election they should examine May and the Conservative campaign of 2017.
With a new leader the Conservatives could easily win a clear majority at the next General Election as long the new leader is a true Brexit supporter and has the ability to communicate with the electorate. These conditions narrows down the field greatly, although the second condition could be somewhat reduced in importance if the new Conservative leader had a team of such who could do it for them, though this would be risky.
The new leader should concentrate first on the EU referendum, tie in the Conservative vote, then explain how Labour's policies would turn the UK into a Nicaragua+++. The electorate are neither dumb nor stupid, when they hear such common sense and evident truths the 'swing voters' will overwhelmingly go Conservative.
But as said above it requires a new leader, someone who will expel from the Conservative Party those who vote against the very major promises made in the manifesto - and thereby give the electorate a belief that what is promised in the manifesto will be adhered to.
As I said to an earlier poster with similar views there is not a shred of electoral or polling evidence to back up your wishful thoughts. At best a GE would produce a similar result.
True. But 2017's GE proved that a campaign can make a dramatic difference in polling in a few short weeks.
I think that the DUP risk both their own survival and even the Union unless they move swiftly on both this issue and on Gay marriage. I would be happy for a united Ireland if supported but their current situation is unrealistic - they are massivley out of step with both the RoUK and the Republic.
But, are they out of step with their own voters?
The Northern Irish are as comfortable with gay marriage as the English are. The DUP’s voters will be divided quite evenly on this. (I haven’t seen poling on abortion.)
The risk for the DUP is that while the assembly is suspended some Westminster backbencher introduces a bill on gay marriage or abortion. The ensuing fracas would not be good for DUP unity.
My impression is the DUP would probably only put up token opposition to gay marriage, but would dig in their heels over abortion.
58% in NI want abortion decriminalised according to this poll, though 72% want it legalised in the case of rape or incest
Insider News. My nephew, in a move calculated to stimulate maximum disapproval from his uncle, joined the RAF and was recently in receipt of his swift wings on 3FTS at Cranwell. He has been told to expect a posting to Voyager fleet. He has also been told by me that I expect full disclosure of everything he hears when he is crewing ZZ336 (May Force One). Stay tuned...
Congratulations to the boy on getting his wings. I’m sure deep down you’re a very proud uncle!
Yes, I was very proud and it was slightly dusty at the wings ceremony.
His euphoria may wilt when he works out what accommodation near Brize Norton he can afford for him and his girlfriend on a Fg Off's salary. I've told him to get shot before it turns ugly and live in. Military aviation is finely honed weapon of destruction for relationships.
I think that the DUP risk both their own survival and even the Union unless they move swiftly on both this issue and on Gay marriage. I would be happy for a united Ireland if supported but their current situation is unrealistic - they are massivley out of step with both the RoUK and the Republic.
But, are they out of step with their own voters?
The Northern Irish are as comfortable with gay marriage as the English are. The DUP’s voters will be divided quite evenly on this. (I haven’t seen poling on abortion.)
The risk for the DUP is that while the assembly is suspended some Westminster backbencher introduces a bill on gay marriage or abortion. The ensuing fracas would not be good for DUP unity.
My impression is the DUP would probably only put up token opposition to gay marriage, but would dig in their heels over abortion.
58% in NI want abortion decriminalised according to this poll, though 72% want it legalised in the case of rape or incest
Very interesting - I'm surprised and ti me it makes the urgency for the DUP to rethink it's position even more important.
I expect a majority of DUP voters oppose it though, as I have posted only 45% of DUP voters back gay marriage for instance. If it passes it will require Sinn Fein, SDLP, Alliance and maybe UUP votes to do so
I think the mistake made in the thread header is to take the argument for a general election at face value. I think it is very unlikely that the Conservative MP genuinely believes that a new leader, a general election and an unlikely majority will suddenly ensure that the EU instantly roll over to have their tummy tickled by the hard Brexiteers.
The objective is to construct a superficial narrative to establish the idea that there was an obvious alternative to whatever reality the government is forced to inhabit. When the contradictions of the Brexit campaign collapse when they encounter reality it is vital that there are many superficial alternatives to blame for that collapse. This is one of them.
In many respects the political debate in the UK since the referendum has been a process of trying to create a narrative of blame for when Brexit inevitably fails to live up to its fantastical campaign promises. There is very little debate about the real trade offs that exist between different priorities.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
Dr. Foxy, the Lords are seeking to dilute and delay our departure, if not deny it outright, and May's incompetent. The 'stab in the back' narrative exists because it, at least partially, reflects reality.
I think that the DUP risk both their own survival and even the Union unless they move swiftly on both this issue and on Gay marriage. I would be happy for a united Ireland if supported but their current situation is unrealistic - they are massivley out of step with both the RoUK and the Republic.
But, are they out of step with their own voters?
The Northern Irish are as comfortable with gay marriage as the English are. The DUP’s voters will be divided quite evenly on this. (I haven’t seen poling on abortion.)
The risk for the DUP is that while the assembly is suspended some Westminster backbencher introduces a bill on gay marriage or abortion. The ensuing fracas would not be good for DUP unity.
My impression is the DUP would probably only put up token opposition to gay marriage, but would dig in their heels over abortion.
58% in NI want abortion decriminalised according to this poll, though 72% want it legalised in the case of rape or incest
Very interesting - I'm surprised and ti me it makes the urgency for the DUP to rethink it's position even more important.
The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey for 2016 has strong support for legalised abortion in cases of rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality, and serious risk to the mother's health, but considerable opposition (by 60% to 34%) to legal abortion as of right.
Dr. Foxy, the Lords are seeking to dilute and delay our departure, if not deny it outright, and May's incompetent. The 'stab in the back' narrative exists because it, at least partially, reflects reality.
The Lords are doing the job MPs are to scared to do
@kle4 - disagreement at Westminster won’t lead to the end of Brexit. Much as our MPs struggle to understand, the process is governed by EU, not British, law.
Paths to any Brexit look difficult, but I don’t see a Parliamentary route to no Brexit.
I've just read the Dominic Cummings article linked in the header. While it is very interesting it can essentially be reduced to the quote from No. 10:
Eurosceptics are full of shit and threats they don’t deliver
They are going to get soft cock brexit and they will do absolutely nothing about it because slotting May will lead to a GE which they would probably lose and imperil the whole brexit jihad.
But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
They all played their part but seem to have selective memories about it, and I bet many Africans would have been making a buck out of it as well at the time. Should they be compensating the Scots they shipped to America as slaves as well, and perhaps the convicts shipped to Australia, and on and on and on. Stick the boring halfwits on an island and let them compensate each other with windbaggery.
Mr. B, it's quite difficult, well, for me at least, to see how monopolies-type legislation can be applied to the internet. With physical shops you can have a ceiling for a sector (say, 25-35% of supermarkets belonging to one chain) but the ephemeral nature of the internet makes that rather tricky.
On Hamilton: lots of drivers want to drive for Ferrari just because of the history. I'd still be surprised if Vettel gave Hamilton the nod.
Can't believe either whatever Hamilton says in public that he would actually accept that situation in reality. He's an egotist and a prima donna. No way will he accept being second fiddle again. Look how sour he was with Rosberg and Alonso, and neither of them were as good as Vettel is.
In justice to him as a multiple world champion and the second most successful driver of all time there seems no reason why he should accept such a position.
Sorry to be a complete pedant, but by what measure do you consider Lewis Hamilton to be the second most successful driver of all time?
I don't agree with David Herdson's conclusion for the following reasons:
1. May is not following a policy of soft Brexit. She is promising hard Brexit but simply leading the nation to humiliation because she is utterly incompetent - less PM than flotsam being swept with the tide. 2. Corbyn is only credible because he is facing May. Before May revealed her 'true self' to the electorate, her vision of hard Brexit and Tory competency had the Tories miles ahead. 3. The reason the polls are tied is because many Tory voters don't want to vote Corbyn and UKIP don't really exist, so choose to believe that May will deliver the Brexit she promised, and Corbyn does not have the support to win an election. 4. The only way Corbyn could ever win an election is if May pisses off the Tories over Brexit so much that they vote for him out of spite - and this is the one scenario which is unfolding. Leavers see Corbyn as temporary but the failure to really leave would be permanent. 5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. We are not looking at a suboptimal soft Brexit. The EU are going for all out humiliation - because May is weak and since she ruled out 'no deal', she is defenceless. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming.
In terms of what I think will happen:
1. The EU will terminate talks with the UK, probably in June, until the UK completely surrender on the backstop. May won't even give us the pleasure of walking away ourselves. 2. This will prompt an orgy of concessions from May. She has chosen not to prepare for all the eventualities because she is a fool. The Tories will move to bring her down. No choice. The Tories remember the ERM - you can't have a national humiliation and win. 3. In this case, whoever wields the knife WILL win the crown. 4. A strong Tory leaver in open conflict with the EU vs Corbyn will see the Tories ahead by some distance. Election timing to be determined but probably next year.
Mr. G, but the financial sector can't just live in stasis for an unspecified number of years. Do you not think that using the pound without a currency union would have a significantly detrimental effect upon the Scottish financial sector?
I don't know enough about it MD but I suspect it would not be hugely damaging. As I say been done before by other countries and they survived. Key point is as part of the UK, Scotland despite lots of natural resources fares poorly against similar independent countries. Being shackled to a much larger partner who cares not a jot about your economy is not a recipe for success. Just as asking your next door neighbour to manage your salary for you would be unthinkable.
Insider News. My nephew, in a move calculated to stimulate maximum disapproval from his uncle, joined the RAF and was recently in receipt of his swift wings on 3FTS at Cranwell. He has been told to expect a posting to Voyager fleet. He has also been told by me that I expect full disclosure of everything he hears when he is crewing ZZ336 (May Force One). Stay tuned...
Congratulations to the boy on getting his wings. I’m sure deep down you’re a very proud uncle!
Yes, I was very proud and it was slightly dusty at the wings ceremony.
His euphoria may wilt when he works out what accommodation near Brize Norton he can afford for him and his girlfriend on a Fg Off's salary. I've told him to get shot before it turns ugly and live in. Military aviation is finely honed weapon of destruction for relationships.
Congrats to both.. One of my great-nephews is anxious to join the Air branch of the CCF at his school and has asked me whether there’s any RAF connection in the family. Apparently it’s seen as desirable. I’m not sure that the fact that his Gt Grandfather was a Sergeant Fitter-Armourer in WWII will stand him in good stead at his (sort of) public school, but (unlike Dan Snow) I’ve told him the truth.
Mr. Ace, an interesting suggestion. Except I can't see the Scottish pound being accepted south of the border (and, presumably, the same the other way).
you mean like happens to Scots now MD, no change then.
I've just read the Dominic Cummings article linked in the header. While it is very interesting it can essentially be reduced to the quote from No. 10:
Eurosceptics are full of shit and threats they don’t deliver
They are going to get soft cock brexit and they will do absolutely nothing about it because slotting May will lead to a GE which they would probably lose and imperil the whole brexit jihad.
Except Corbyn too backs Brexit, at most it would be soft Brexit ie staying in the single market and customs union and that would probably require the LDs to hold the balance of power
Mr. B, it's quite difficult, well, for me at least, to see how monopolies-type legislation can be applied to the internet. With physical shops you can have a ceiling for a sector (say, 25-35% of supermarkets belonging to one chain) but the ephemeral nature of the internet makes that rather tricky.
On Hamilton: lots of drivers want to drive for Ferrari just because of the history. I'd still be surprised if Vettel gave Hamilton the nod.
Can't believe either whatever Hamilton says in public that he would actually accept that situation in reality. He's an egotist and a prima donna. No way will he accept being second fiddle again. Look how sour he was with Rosberg and Alonso, and neither of them were as good as Vettel is.
In justice to him as a multiple world champion and the second most successful driver of all time there seems no reason why he should accept such a position.
Sorry to be a complete pedant, but by what measure do you consider Lewis Hamilton to be the second most successful driver of all time?
The hubris is incredible. In Netherlands this week and people were asking what kind of idiots are running UK. To a person they thought it was mad and that EU will not accept any of the halfwitted fudges emanating from the Westminster donkeys.
I suspect that few would argue that staying in the common market and customs union is leaving the EU. And in that case, there's no way the EU could allow us to evade FOM - it would be political suicide to give us that degree of special treatment. Yet many politicians are seriously arguing that.
I can understand an opposition to Brexit arguing for that but it's not even a cunning plan.
Pretending you're leaving when you're not seems to be a backstop, even though it's transparent nonsense. It's what they're reduced to now they realise a second referendum would be political suicide.
Better to go with Mr Meeks' cunning plan … try Brexit and see the result
So long as we leave the single market then we can end FOM, regardless of whether we stay in the customs union.
Plus far from 'special treatment' the UK has had a more lax approach to FOM than most EU nations thanks to Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as most other EU nations did up to 2011
You KEEP ignoring the fact that being in the CU is basically the same as being in the SM. There is a reason that Brussels keep rejecting May's backstop of CU extension for the whole UK - they keep saying it can only apply to NI. Why? Because extended CU membership for the UK would in effect allow the UK to remain in the SM and this violates the EU line against cherry picking - they will insist on FOM. You need to read what the EU are clearly saying. Long term CU membership for the UK is not an option.
Mr. B, it's quite difficult, well, for me at least, to see how monopolies-type legislation can be applied to the internet. With physical shops you can have a ceiling for a sector (say, 25-35% of supermarkets belonging to one chain) but the ephemeral nature of the internet makes that rather tricky.
On Hamilton: lots of drivers want to drive for Ferrari just because of the history. I'd still be surprised if Vettel gave Hamilton the nod.
Can't believe either whatever Hamilton says in public that he would actually accept that situation in reality. He's an egotist and a prima donna. No way will he accept being second fiddle again. Look how sour he was with Rosberg and Alonso, and neither of them were as good as Vettel is.
In justice to him as a multiple world champion and the second most successful driver of all time there seems no reason why he should accept such a position.
Sorry to be a complete pedant, but by what measure do you consider Lewis Hamilton to be the second most successful driver of all time?
That's what I'm guessing. But I think that's pretty harsh on those who drove in an era when there were fewer races. As a percentage of races entered, Hamilton is fourth behind Fangio, Ascari and Clark (excluding the Indy 500).
I don't agree with David Herdson's conclusion for the following reasons:
1. May is not following a policy of soft Brexit. She is promising hard Brexit but simply leading the nation to humiliation because she is utterly incompetent - less PM than flotsam being swept with the tide. 2. Corbyn is only credible because he is facing May. Before May revealed her 'true self' to the electorate, her vision of hard Brexit and Tory competency had the Tories miles ahead. 3. The reason the polls are tied is because many Tory voters don't want to vote Corbyn and UKIP don't really exist, so choose to believe that May will deliver the Brexit she promised, and Corbyn does not have the support to win an election. 4. The only way Corbyn could ever win an election is if May pisses off the Tories over Brexit so much that they vote for him out of spite - and this is the one scenario which is unfolding. Leavers see Corbyn as temporary but the failure to really leave would be permanent. 5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. We are not looking at a suboptimal soft Brexit. The EU are going for all out humiliation - because May is weak and since she ruled out 'no deal', she is defenceless. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming.
In terms of what I think will happen:
1. The EU will terminate talks with the UK, probably in June, until the UK completely surrender on the backstop. May won't even give us the pleasure of walking away ourselves. 2. This will prompt an orgy of concessions from May. She has chosen not to prepare for all the eventualities because she is a fool. The Tories will move to bring her down. No choice. The Tories remember the ERM - you can't have a national humiliation and win. 3. In this case, whoever wields the knife WILL win the crown. 4. A strong Tory leaver in open conflict with the EU vs Corbyn will see the Tories ahead by some distance. Election timing to be determined but probably next year.
Sounds about right, but regardless UK is in the merde either way and hard exit is only option left.
Mr. G, we must respectfully disagree on the question of Scotland's financial sector should it become independent and retain the pound but without a currency union. Hopefully, we never have to find out which one of us is right.
Mr. Pointer, a problem with using stats for 'best' driver in F1 is that the calendar now is larger than it was, and points are awarded in larger number and for lower positions than it used to be.
It was, during Schumacher's early days, 10 for a win, then 6, 4, 3, 2, 1. They added points down to two more places (still 10 for a win) to try and stop him getting so many titles.
Later it was increased to the current 25 for a win, going down to 1 points for 10th.
And half a century ago the death toll was immensely high.
Plus, reliability is massively better than it was even 20 years ago. Using stats is of limited value in assessing how good F1 drivers are.
Edited extra bit: I dislike the later European F1 start times.
Mr. B, it's quite difficult, well, for me at least, to see how monopolies-type legislation can be applied to the internet. With physical shops you can have a ceiling for a sector (say, 25-35% of supermarkets belonging to one chain) but the ephemeral nature of the internet makes that rather tricky.
On Hamilton: lots of drivers want to drive for Ferrari just because of the history. I'd still be surprised if Vettel gave Hamilton the nod.
Can't believe either whatever Hamilton says in public that he would actually accept that situation in reality. He's an egotist and a prima donna. No way will he accept being second fiddle again. Look how sour he was with Rosberg and Alonso, and neither of them were as good as Vettel is.
In justice to him as a multiple world champion and the second most successful driver of all time there seems no reason why he should accept such a position.
Sorry to be a complete pedant, but by what measure do you consider Lewis Hamilton to be the second most successful driver of all time?
Back in the day when you had to be a real driver and not a games freak, Jackie Stewart , Jim Clark, Fangio and more would have wiped the floor with him
Mr. B, it's quite difficult, well, for me at least, to see how monopolies-type legislation can be applied to the internet. With physical shops you can have a ceiling for a sector (say, 25-35% of supermarkets belonging to one chain) but the ephemeral nature of the internet makes that rather tricky.
On Hamilton: lots of drivers want to drive for Ferrari just because of the history. I'd still be surprised if Vettel gave Hamilton the nod.
Can't believe either whatever Hamilton says in public that he would actually accept that situation in reality. He's an egotist and a prima donna. No way will he accept being second fiddle again. Look how sour he was with Rosberg and Alonso, and neither of them were as good as Vettel is.
In justice to him as a multiple world champion and the second most successful driver of all time there seems no reason why he should accept such a position.
Sorry to be a complete pedant, but by what measure do you consider Lewis Hamilton to be the second most successful driver of all time?
Only M. Schumacher has more wins. Only MS and Fangio have more titles. Lewis has the pole positions record.
If you vote for an extra £350 million a week for the NHS and no Project Fear you are voting for Brexit in Name Only. But there's no BINO available. The EU won't change the way it does things to be nice to an ex member that puts its project at risk. At the same time the UK needs a close relationship with the EU if things are going to stay broadly the same and Project Fear avoided.. So we end up with isolation or client state, both of which are unsustainable.
Mr. P, it was a startling omission from Smith's report, and inexplicable given she went right to the edge and then left out the rather obvious matter of the implications of using the pound without a currency union.
far worse implications of not doing it MD. We are being slowly beggared by Westminster, having any independent financial position could not be worse.
Constitutionally I think we are in an awful pickle.
There is the potential for the government to manifestly lose the Confidence of the House in its Brexit policy, but it is very unlikely that it would lose a vote on a formal vote of No Confidence as David explains.
This would create a zombie government that existed with only the formal confidence of the house, but without the actual confidence of the house, unable to enact its policy in law, but also too scared of an election to go to the polls and able to survive Parliamentary procedure that would force an election.
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act needs to go and we need to fix this flaw in the Constitution.
A factor here may be simple job protection. A zombie government as you describe (which arguably we already have) would almost certainly lead to electoral defeat in the end. But if you're an MP, losing your job in 4 years' time sounds a lot better than losing it right now. I am not cynical about politicians but at some level, not even necessarily conscious, these things play a role.
It is, however, not in the long-term interest of the Conservative Party, let alone Britain. Obviously I'm biased, but it's true for all parties that there comes a point where a spell out of government is needed to work out what one's for. Carrying on past the point of exhaustion ultimately discredits anyone.
But having said that, was it not reported that Germany could have wiped out Greek debt for less than the war reparations (possibly indexed) that the Greeks had waived?
Though I doubt this MP has totted up how much we might need to pay to various former colonies if his passion for compensation catches on.
No kidding, there's the 777 trillion the West woukd owe over slavery for a start. At least, that's what someone asked for. Appatently you can put a number value on a human life.
Presumably the West could pass the claim on to the Arab and African states which caught the slaves and sold them in the first place. Plus it would also have claims for all the Westerners captured by Arabs and forced into slavery and servitude.
The argument I've read against that is that Arabs and North Africans were kindly slaveowners, compared to Europeans.
Which is bollocks.
People should study this more The horrific North African slave raids on Devon, Cornwall, Ireland and Wales are an untold tale of misery from the 16th to the 18th Centuries.
Mr. G, you don't believe Scotland using the pound (should an independence referendum result in the UK splitting) without a currency union would damage the financial sector?
The Growth Commission Report solution to that is simple.
All the banks would leave.
You can't damage the financial sector if you don't have one.
Come on Fred , no need to be bitter and twisted about the knighthood
Mr. B, it's quite difficult, well, for me at least, to see how monopolies-type legislation can be applied to the internet. With physical shops you can have a ceiling for a sector (say, 25-35% of supermarkets belonging to one chain) but the ephemeral nature of the internet makes that rather tricky.
On Hamilton: lots of drivers want to drive for Ferrari just because of the history. I'd still be surprised if Vettel gave Hamilton the nod.
Can't believe either whatever Hamilton says in public that he would actually accept that situation in reality. He's an egotist and a prima donna. No way will he accept being second fiddle again. Look how sour he was with Rosberg and Alonso, and neither of them were as good as Vettel is.
In justice to him as a multiple world champion and the second most successful driver of all time there seems no reason why he should accept such a position.
Sorry to be a complete pedant, but by what measure do you consider Lewis Hamilton to be the second most successful driver of all time?
Only M. Schumacher has more wins. Only MS and Fangio have more titles. Lewis has the pole positions record.
Again, Hamilton doesn't hold the pole record as % of entries:
I don't agree with David Herdson's conclusion for the following reasons:
1. May is not following a policy of soft Brexit. She is promising hard Brexit but simply leading the nation to humiliation because she is utterly incompetent - less PM than flotsam being swept with the tide. 2. Corbyn is only credible because he is facing May. Before May revealed her 'true self' to the electorate, her vision of hard Brexit and Tory competency had the Tories miles ahead. 3. The reason the polls are tied is because many Tory voters don't want to vote Corbyn and UKIP don't really exist, so choose to believe that May will deliver the Brexit she promised, and Corbyn does not have the support to win an election. 4. The only way Corbyn could ever win an election is if May pisses off the Tories over Brexit so much that they vote for him out of spite - and this is the one scenario which is unfolding. Leavers see Corbyn as temporary but the failure to really leave would be permanent. 5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. We are not looking at a suboptimal soft Brexit. The EU are going for all out humiliation - because May is weak and since she ruled out 'no deal', she is defenceless. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming.
In terms of what I think will happen:
1. The EU will terminate talks with the UK, probably in June, until the UK completely surrender on the backstop. May won't even give us the pleasure of walking away ourselves. 2. This will prompt an orgy of concessions from May. She has chosen not to prepare for all the eventualities because she is a fool. The Tories will move to bring her down. No choice. The Tories remember the ERM - you can't have a national humiliation and win. 3. In this case, whoever wields the knife WILL win the crown. 4. A strong Tory leaver in open conflict with the EU vs Corbyn will see the Tories ahead by some distance. Election timing to be determined but probably next year.
All except 4. While the nation certainly would vote to leave again if given the chance to do so tomorrow I’m not sure they are in the mood to fight against whatever Brexit whichever government it is delivers to them.
A GE will not be Brexit based it will be Lab pointing out the degeneracy of the Cons.
If you vote for an extra £350 million a week for the NHS and no Project Fear you are voting for Brexit in Name Only. But there's no BINO available. The EU won't change the way it does things to be nice to an ex member that puts its project at risk. At the same time the UK needs a close relationship with the EU if things are going to stay broadly the same and Project Fear avoided.. So we end up with isolation or client state, both of which are unsustainable.
I have long said we will end out , paying at least double and being told what to do and when to do it. Morons will think they are happy as they have "sovereignty" until they notice less NHS , less money and more immigration
Mr. Pointer, it is not the job of the Lords to seek to dictate the terms of departure or axe the exit date, or try to keep us in.
The fact they're unelected and trying to thwart/dilute the electorate's decision at the referendum is a juxtaposition not conducive to social harmony.
1. I would much prefer an elected upper house, but see no sign of this government making that happen.
2. Thwart? I was not aware that the HoL have voted to stop Brexit. Apologies if I missed that.
3. Dilute the electorate's decision? Due to the inadequacies (stupidity) of the way the referendum was framed the only decision we know the electorate voted for was to Leave the EU. Did that mean seek an agreement that was akin to say Norway, or Switzerland, or Canada, or the US, or China, or North Korea for that matter? No one knows because it was never defined.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
What is interesting in this speech is the often ignored issue of the jurisdiction of the withdrawal agreement. The UK wants it governed by a joint panel (as with all international treaties); the EU insists on the ECJ. Not sure how May fudges this one - ECJ jurisdiction would be absolutely ridiculous. Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
I think the mistake made in the thread header is to take the argument for a general election at face value. I think it is very unlikely that the Conservative MP genuinely believes that a new leader, a general election and an unlikely majority will suddenly ensure that the EU instantly roll over to have their tummy tickled by the hard Brexiteers.
The objective is to construct a superficial narrative to establish the idea that there was an obvious alternative to whatever reality the government is forced to inhabit. When the contradictions of the Brexit campaign collapse when they encounter reality it is vital that there are many superficial alternatives to blame for that collapse. This is one of them.
In many respects the political debate in the UK since the referendum has been a process of trying to create a narrative of blame for when Brexit inevitably fails to live up to its fantastical campaign promises. There is very little debate about the real trade offs that exist between different priorities.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
As for thwarting, I'm afraid I can't find the chaps name (he appeared on the Sky programme The Pledge, if that helps anyone, and I think is a Lib Dem peer) overtly called in the Lords for our departure to be averted.
I think the mistake made in the thread header is to take the argument for a general election at face value. I think it is very unlikely that the Conservative MP genuinely believes that a new leader, a general election and an unlikely majority will suddenly ensure that the EU instantly roll over to have their tummy tickled by the hard Brexiteers.
The objective is to construct a superficial narrative to establish the idea that there was an obvious alternative to whatever reality the government is forced to inhabit. When the contradictions of the Brexit campaign collapse when they encounter reality it is vital that there are many superficial alternatives to blame for that collapse. This is one of them.
In many respects the political debate in the UK since the referendum has been a process of trying to create a narrative of blame for when Brexit inevitably fails to live up to its fantastical campaign promises. There is very little debate about the real trade offs that exist between different priorities.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa). 6. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming
If 5 leads inevitably to 6, your golden rule doesn't apply.
The solution is no deal.
We don’t have time for no deal. The politicians have been either delusional, or duplicitous, or dumb.
I think the mistake made in the thread header is to take the argument for a general election at face value. I think it is very unlikely that the Conservative MP genuinely believes that a new leader, a general election and an unlikely majority will suddenly ensure that the EU instantly roll over to have their tummy tickled by the hard Brexiteers.
The objective is to construct a superficial narrative to establish the idea that there was an obvious alternative to whatever reality the government is forced to inhabit. When the contradictions of the Brexit campaign collapse when they encounter reality it is vital that there are many superficial alternatives to blame for that collapse. This is one of them.
In many respects the political debate in the UK since the referendum has been a process of trying to create a narrative of blame for when Brexit inevitably fails to live up to its fantastical campaign promises. There is very little debate about the real trade offs that exist between different priorities.
Yes, it is all about establishing a "stab in the back" narrative, nothing more.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
I tend to agree but even if we go down the WTO Brexit route the Leavers will blame all the consequences on everyone else not having prepared for it properly. The chances of most Leavers ever, under any circumstances, admitting that we made a mistake is zero. Every consequence will always be somebody else's fault,
Fine, then may I suggest the Remainers go away and leave us to deal with Brexit our way? Then, if it doesn't work, you can ask to reverse it. 45 years seems like a reasonable period to try it out.
Where should the Remainer holding camp be? Australia?
Comments
Which is bollocks.
Before commenting on topic, an excellent piece of political analysis from Ireland:
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0525/966113-micheal-lehane-analysis/
I'm sure some numpty was on here earlier in the week telling us NO was going to win but it really looks like a big YES win and I'm personally delighted.
From there to another excellent Saturday piece from David for which, as always. many thanks.
I'm not a friend or supporter of the Conservative Party and its various factions or cliques. I already see someone has put up the old canard of "a new leader and this is how they can win a majority". Everybody, it seems, knows how to do politics except the politicians.
May's position remains predicated on TINA (despite rumoured "dream teams" of Gove and Davidson (who isn't even an MP yet)) and the presence of Jeremy Corbyn. He remains a huge asset for the Conservatives and an electorally and politically polarising figure which maintains the current holding pattern.
Those who have little or no faith or confidence in May won't move because of the fear of Corbyn. She can, in effect, do pretty much what she likes because of that Sword of Damocles hanging over us (apparently).
Yet the hair might be snapped if the public don't take kindly to another act of Conservative self-indulgence. As David explains, the Government itself (with DUP support) has a majority and the only circumstances under which I could have imagined ALL the opposition parties (including the DUP) in the same lobby would have been a proposal to keep the FOBT limit unchanged but Matt Hancock has shot that fox (though grumblings on the Conservative backbenches continue it seems).
As to the A50 agreement, the question is how many Conservative (and Labour) MPs are going to defy their party on this.
Would be a nice earner for the actuaries and lawyers, though.
I suspect that few would argue that staying in the common market and customs union is leaving the EU. And in that case, there's no way the EU could allow us to evade FOM - it would be political suicide to give us that degree of special treatment. Yet many politicians are seriously arguing that.
I can understand an opposition to Brexit arguing for that but it's not even a cunning plan.
Pretending you're leaving when you're not seems to be a backstop, even though it's transparent nonsense. It's what they're reduced to now they realise a second referendum would be political suicide.
Better to go with Mr Meeks' cunning plan … try Brexit and see the result
It'd ridiculous to dredge up the past in a glorified guilty trip for the purpose of self-righteous money-grubbing greed.
There are some occasions when symbolic gestures help but the “woe is us” (or rather the “woe is our eight-times-grandfather”) brigade are a childish nuisance who irritate rather than help.
Thanks.
https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1000287145347768320?s=21
Miss Cyclefree, such is the nature of the Oppression Olympics.
Would make Red Bull’s little local difficulties in Baku look like a children’s playground argument in comparison.
(reaches for coat...)
You are most welcome.
They claim in Iceland that they only converted to Christianity in 1000AD because of the effect of all their female Irish slaves they'd taken to bring up their children.
Plus far from 'special treatment' the UK has had a more lax approach to FOM than most EU nations thanks to Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as most other EU nations did up to 2011
'The Moroccan–American Treaty of Friendship, signed in 1786, stands as the U.S.'s oldest non-broken friendship treaty'
Mr. B, most of history has been nations trying to conquer other nations. Ours was better at it than most. Feeling guilty about it is as dumb as a resident of Rome apologising to modern day Turks for defeating Antiochus at the Battle of Magnesia.
The guilt fetish is bloody weird.
All the banks would leave.
You can't damage the financial sector if you don't have one.
The risk for the DUP is that while the assembly is suspended some Westminster backbencher introduces a bill on gay marriage or abortion. The ensuing fracas would not be good for DUP unity.
If the LDs won the election, they would have a manifesto to be implemented.
One of the reasons for our present malaise is the snake oil salesmen who craved our votes during the campaign disowned it at the moment of victory.
£350m for the NHS wasn't a commitment...
Some aspects of history are less fashionable than others.
Likewise, Anglo-Saxons had a large slave trade which William the Conqueror ended. He'd probably get more credit for that if he hadn't tainted his legacy with the Harrying/Harrowing of the North.
Edited extra bit: review* even.
https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/nearly-75-people-northern-ireland-12039679
68% in NI back gay marriage but while 80% of Sinn Fein voters do only 45% of DUP voters do
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/gay-marriage-now-has-overwhelming-support-in-northern-ireland-poll-31355428.html
His euphoria may wilt when he works out what accommodation near Brize Norton he can afford for him and his girlfriend on a Fg Off's salary. I've told him to get shot before it turns ugly and live in. Military aviation is finely honed weapon of destruction for relationships.
It is important that the Brexiteers cannot dodge the consequences of their policy, so it should be WTO Brexit.
They are cowards though, and will funk it as DH suggests.
Paths to any Brexit look difficult, but I don’t see a Parliamentary route to no Brexit.
Eurosceptics are full of shit and threats they don’t deliver
They are going to get soft cock brexit and they will do absolutely nothing about it because slotting May will lead to a GE which they would probably lose and imperil the whole brexit jihad.
Should they be compensating the Scots they shipped to America as slaves as well, and perhaps the convicts shipped to Australia, and on and on and on.
Stick the boring halfwits on an island and let them compensate each other with windbaggery.
1. May is not following a policy of soft Brexit. She is promising hard Brexit but simply leading the nation to humiliation because she is utterly incompetent - less PM than flotsam being swept with the tide.
2. Corbyn is only credible because he is facing May. Before May revealed her 'true self' to the electorate, her vision of hard Brexit and Tory competency had the Tories miles ahead.
3. The reason the polls are tied is because many Tory voters don't want to vote Corbyn and UKIP don't really exist, so choose to believe that May will deliver the Brexit she promised, and Corbyn does not have the support to win an election.
4. The only way Corbyn could ever win an election is if May pisses off the Tories over Brexit so much that they vote for him out of spite - and this is the one scenario which is unfolding. Leavers see Corbyn as temporary but the failure to really leave would be permanent.
5. The golden rule of UK politics is that standing up to the EU is popular (and vice versa).
6. We are not looking at a suboptimal soft Brexit. The EU are going for all out humiliation - because May is weak and since she ruled out 'no deal', she is defenceless. And no UK Government can survive a humiliation of the scale that is coming.
In terms of what I think will happen:
1. The EU will terminate talks with the UK, probably in June, until the UK completely surrender on the backstop. May won't even give us the pleasure of walking away ourselves.
2. This will prompt an orgy of concessions from May. She has chosen not to prepare for all the eventualities because she is a fool. The Tories will move to bring her down. No choice. The Tories remember the ERM - you can't have a national humiliation and win.
3. In this case, whoever wields the knife WILL win the crown.
4. A strong Tory leaver in open conflict with the EU vs Corbyn will see the Tories ahead by some distance. Election timing to be determined but probably next year.
Key point is as part of the UK, Scotland despite lots of natural resources fares poorly against similar independent countries.
Being shackled to a much larger partner who cares not a jot about your economy is not a recipe for success. Just as asking your next door neighbour to manage your salary for you would be unthinkable.
The fact they're unelected and trying to thwart/dilute the electorate's decision at the referendum is a juxtaposition not conducive to social harmony.
Mr. Pointer, a problem with using stats for 'best' driver in F1 is that the calendar now is larger than it was, and points are awarded in larger number and for lower positions than it used to be.
It was, during Schumacher's early days, 10 for a win, then 6, 4, 3, 2, 1. They added points down to two more places (still 10 for a win) to try and stop him getting so many titles.
Later it was increased to the current 25 for a win, going down to 1 points for 10th.
And half a century ago the death toll was immensely high.
Plus, reliability is massively better than it was even 20 years ago. Using stats is of limited value in assessing how good F1 drivers are.
Edited extra bit: I dislike the later European F1 start times.
It is, however, not in the long-term interest of the Conservative Party, let alone Britain. Obviously I'm biased, but it's true for all parties that there comes a point where a spell out of government is needed to work out what one's for. Carrying on past the point of exhaustion ultimately discredits anyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Percentage_pole_positions
A GE will not be Brexit based it will be Lab pointing out the degeneracy of the Cons.
"sovereignty" until they notice less NHS , less money and more immigration
2. Thwart? I was not aware that the HoL have voted to stop Brexit. Apologies if I missed that.
3. Dilute the electorate's decision? Due to the inadequacies (stupidity) of the way the referendum was framed the only decision we know the electorate voted for was to Leave the EU. Did that mean seek an agreement that was akin to say Norway, or Switzerland, or Canada, or the US, or China, or North Korea for that matter? No one knows because it was never defined.
https://twitter.com/SteveD4848/status/997553962306932737
As for thwarting, I'm afraid I can't find the chaps name (he appeared on the Sky programme The Pledge, if that helps anyone, and I think is a Lib Dem peer) overtly called in the Lords for our departure to be averted.
Anyway, off to watch practice.
My money is on a combination of all three.