Today it was an actual* dead sheep. The performance by Boris today was nothing like Howe in November 1990.
*Not literally.
Right. I read it first as implying that Howe's was also a dead sheep, which I assumed you meant ironically but then such a statement would apply to all resignation speeches, hence my confusion.
Presumably an allusion to Dennis Healey on debating with Geoffrey Howe: “Like being savaged by a dead sheep.”
What is the fascination with a US trade deal? Crap food and crap cars..? Sounds like going back to Britain in the 60s..
The US is the world's biggest market. Far bigger than the entire EU combined let alone the EU27 alone. Why would you not want a deal with the world's biggest market?
I think there are - fundamentally - three issues with a US trade deal:
1. It would require us to open up our food sector to their products. - The good news is this means cheaper food - But it means that British farmers (who operate to higher standards, and therefore costs) would be disadvantaged - It also means we would lose the ability to (for example) require that GM food was labelled as such (see Monsanto vs Province of Quebec)
2. It would require us to sign up to a dispute recognition mechanism that is potentially more one sided than the ECJ. If we assume the NAFTA system is replicated, it means that three man tribunals consisting of two American and one British judge decide things. Furthermore, these operate in secrecy and have the right to overturn British laws if they are judged to have created barriers.
3. They would likely require us to keep our intellectual property laws in lock step with the US. Now, as it happens, I have no particular dislike of US intellectual property laws, but I do dislike the idea that if Congress passes a bill, without any consultation or right of refusal on our behalf, that we are obliged to copy.
Boulton appears to have forgotten the EU came into being in the 1990s.
...
True, but doesn't really matter. I don't see any good reason why the Thatcherite reforms of the 1980s couldn't be implemented now, if the situation permitted it. Indeed, I think some member states have made those kind of reforms, haven't they?
The Tories have been in a state of permanent euro-limbo since 1990.
At some point the UK body politic will have to deal with a couple of key observations:
1) The EU will evolve into a full federal European state 2) The UK is now even more powerless to stop it than it was before
UK foreign policy has been in total denial about this geopolitical fact since the 1950s.
If it is A then Sweden, Denmark, much of Eastern Europe will join the UK, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland outside the EU
Ahh yes, the old "loads of countries are lining up to follow the UK down this rabbit hole of fuck" argument.
Honestly thought we'd seen the last of that, all things considered.
Not now no but given the overwhelming opposition to the Euro in Sweden and Denmark in polls both having already voted against the Euro in referenda and with the anti immigration Swedish Democrats leading many Swedish polls if it came to a forced choice between staying in a Federal EU with the Euro or leaving the EU and joining Norway and Iceland and Switzerland and the UK outside they would choose the latter course and rejoin an enlarged EFTA instead.
Poland and the Czech Republic would also likely leave as neither have any enthusiasm for a full Federal EU either
Boulton appears to have forgotten the EU came into being in the 1990s.
...
True, but doesn't really matter. I don't see any good reason why the Thatcherite reforms of the 1980s couldn't be implemented now, if the situation permitted it. Indeed, I think some member states have made those kind of reforms, haven't they?
Spain, most recently.
Hopefully France in the next few years, if Macron doesn't crash and burn first.
In European naval news, whilst Germany has submarines that cannot go to sea, Spain has brand-new ones that firstly wouldn't float, and now don't fit into their dock:
Delighted to see the back of Woodcock, I have thought to myself several times that we would have been better off if he'd actually lost his seat but it's worked out in the long run and voters will get a chance to try and elect a proper Labour MP.
Don't think I've commented on his suspension and the investigation into his behaviour but it does look a little cowardly running away.
As for Corbyn being as bad as Hodge that's rubbish. As someone on the council Hodge did have a responsibility for the places were the crimes took place.
Corbyn was informed and passed the information on. What he didn't do was what Tom Watson did and choose to pursue it himself.
Knowing what we know now you could say Corbyn should have done a Watson and Watson a Corbyn. That's only because we know the truth with hindsight though, Corbyn received a very little amount of information and passed it on. Tom Watson received more information (that we now know to be false) and I understand directly to him.
Call me crazy but I do think it's the polices responsibility to investigate people and make accusations. Politicians going off half cocked with very little evidence is not good. Though quite frankly I thinks it just a disgusting smear that reflects on the character of those who make it.
Today it was an actual* dead sheep. The performance by Boris today was nothing like Howe in November 1990.
*Not literally.
Right. I read it first as implying that Howe's was also a dead sheep, which I assumed you meant ironically but then such a statement would apply to all resignation speeches, hence my confusion.
Wasn’t reference to Thatchers remark that being attached by Geoffrey Howe is “like being savages by a dead sheep”. Ie it was Howe that was the sheep, not the speech
In European naval news, whilst Germany has submarines that cannot go to sea, Spain has brand-new ones that firstly wouldn't float, and now don't fit into their dock:
The Tories have been in a state of permanent euro-limbo since 1990.
At some point the UK body politic will have to deal with a couple of key observations:
1) The EU will evolve into a full federal European state 2) The UK is now even more powerless to stop it than it was before
UK foreign policy has been in total denial about this geopolitical fact since the 1950s.
1) I could see part of it doing so. OTOH, I could also some countries increasingly doing their own thing, without reference to the centre (eg Hungary, Italy, Poland).
2) We are indeed powerless to stop it. That's no reason to be part of it.
Today it was an actual* dead sheep. The performance by Boris today was nothing like Howe in November 1990.
*Not literally.
Right. I read it first as implying that Howe's was also a dead sheep, which I assumed you meant ironically but then such a statement would apply to all resignation speeches, hence my confusion.
Wasn’t reference to Thatchers remark that being attached by Geoffrey Howe is “like being savages by a dead sheep”. Ie it was Howe that was the sheep, not the speech
Healey, not Thatcher. I don't think she said anything nearly as witty in her entire career.
In European naval news, whilst Germany has submarines that cannot go to sea, Spain has brand-new ones that firstly wouldn't float, and now don't fit into their dock:
We are indeed powerless to stop it. That's no reason to be part of it.
This is the wrong framing.
There are external geopolitical forces pushing us towards European integration and there are a large number of British people who want to play an active role in it. The question you have to ask yourself if you're not comfortable with it is to what extend it is worth resisting.
Ignoring it or pretending we can stand aside from it is not a viable option.
We are indeed powerless to stop it. That's no reason to be part of it.
This is the wrong framing.
There are external geopolitical forces pushing us towards European integration and there are a large number of British people who want to play an active role in it. The question you have to ask yourself if you're not comfortable with it is to what extend it is worth resisting.
Ignoring it or pretending we can stand aside from it is not a viable option.
So there's literally no other option but to join? Hm....
Today it was an actual* dead sheep. The performance by Boris today was nothing like Howe in November 1990.
*Not literally.
Right. I read it first as implying that Howe's was also a dead sheep, which I assumed you meant ironically but then such a statement would apply to all resignation speeches, hence my confusion.
Wasn’t reference to Thatchers remark that being attached by Geoffrey Howe is “like being savages by a dead sheep”. Ie it was Howe that was the sheep, not the speech
Healey, not Thatcher. I don't think she said anything nearly as witty in her entire career.
Did she say that every prime minister needs a Willie (not sure how his name is spelt)?
Those in favour of Brexit are strange bedfellows; McDonnell, Corbyn, Farage, Trump. None of these people have been backward in attacking western leaders. The strange thing is, none of them is on the record as saying anything nasty about that other loather of the EU, that nice Mr Putin.
There are strange bedfellows on both sides of the argument. It's an argument that cuts across the right/left economic divide.
Call me crazy but I do think it's the polices responsibility to investigate people and make accusations.
Well, if you believe that you are certainly crazy. I'm going to assume that you meant 'politicians,' however.
As it happens however you are in error. He received information that a child rape gang was operating in his constituency, that enquiries were being blocked, and he took no action to unblock them.
Now as I pointed out legally under the laws of the time he was probably correct in this action. However, given his habit of speaking out on every other matter that attracted his attention, it is to say the least surprising (edit - and disappointing) that he didn't make a thing of this when he could actually have done something positive.
As for disgusting smear - the problem with Corbyn is it's very nearly impossible to smear him, because it's hard to come up with anything worse than the truth. He has made common cause with mass murderers, supported Holocaust Deniers, kept silent about child sexual abuse in his constituency and admits repeatedly lying in his 'fully costed' manifesto. What could possibly be said that's worse than that?
We are indeed powerless to stop it. That's no reason to be part of it.
This is the wrong framing.
There are external geopolitical forces pushing us towards European integration and there are a large number of British people who want to play an active role in it. The question you have to ask yourself if you're not comfortable with it is to what extend it is worth resisting.
Ignoring it or pretending we can stand aside from it is not a viable option.
Today it was an actual* dead sheep. The performance by Boris today was nothing like Howe in November 1990.
*Not literally.
Right. I read it first as implying that Howe's was also a dead sheep, which I assumed you meant ironically but then such a statement would apply to all resignation speeches, hence my confusion.
Wasn’t reference to Thatchers remark that being attached by Geoffrey Howe is “like being savages by a dead sheep”. Ie it was Howe that was the sheep, not the speech
Healey, not Thatcher. I don't think she said anything nearly as witty in her entire career.
Did she say that every prime minister needs a Willie (not sure how his name is spelt)?
In European naval news, whilst Germany has submarines that cannot go to sea, Spain has brand-new ones that firstly wouldn't float, and now don't fit into their dock:
Today it was an actual* dead sheep. The performance by Boris today was nothing like Howe in November 1990.
*Not literally.
Right. I read it first as implying that Howe's was also a dead sheep, which I assumed you meant ironically but then such a statement would apply to all resignation speeches, hence my confusion.
Wasn’t reference to Thatchers remark that being attached by Geoffrey Howe is “like being savages by a dead sheep”. Ie it was Howe that was the sheep, not the speech
Healey, not Thatcher. I don't think she said anything nearly as witty in her entire career.
Did she say that every prime minister needs a Willie (not sure how his name is spelt)?
We are indeed powerless to stop it. That's no reason to be part of it.
This is the wrong framing.
There are external geopolitical forces pushing us towards European integration and there are a large number of British people who want to play an active role in it. The question you have to ask yourself if you're not comfortable with it is to what extend it is worth resisting.
Ignoring it or pretending we can stand aside from it is not a viable option.
Obviously it is a viable option.
It just isn't an option you like.
It's not viable in the sense that it will lead to decades more navel gazing about Brexit, and you'll have to be permanently vigilant lest some future government decide to participate in some new scheme a bit too closely for your liking. It's no future anyone should want for this country.
On Boulton's tweet - didn't the EU have far fewer competences back then?
It did, but you really would be dancing on pin-heads to use that as a justification for what Boris said. As ever he was talking complete crap.
Absolutely not it is an excellent point.
Thatcher in the 80s overturned a lot of what was then established laws and policies in order to transform the economy. A lot of shibboleths were tackled. The EEC lacked competencies on those areas and Parliament was sovereign so Parliament could make the reforms.
A future Thatcher wanting to tackle current shibboleths in the same way won't be able to within Parliament if the EU has those competences.
A future Thatcher would have to operate on a larger stage and win the political debate for change across the EU.
You might argue that would be impossible, but then that's what people said about Thatcher's task before she did it.
My point is the UK/English foreign policy has, for the past 400 years or so, always been devoted to maintaining a disunited Europe.
In that sense the UK has failed. Our theatrics haven't slowed down the emergence of the EU as a great european hegemonic power; by throwing our toys out of the pram we've almost certainly cleared a path for it to accelerate.
UK foreign policy hasn't yet evolved to deal with a world where we'll be subservient to the EU and the US, rather than just the US.
We are indeed powerless to stop it. That's no reason to be part of it.
This is the wrong framing.
There are external geopolitical forces pushing us towards European integration and there are a large number of British people who want to play an active role in it. The question you have to ask yourself if you're not comfortable with it is to what extend it is worth resisting.
Ignoring it or pretending we can stand aside from it is not a viable option.
Obviously it is a viable option.
It just isn't an option you like.
In a sense you're both wrong, because although there are geopolitical forces pushing European integration they are internal (the fears and desires of its leaders plus the considerable distance of other markets) rather than external (where forces tend currently to be centripetal - see Scotland, Catalonia, Kosovo, Tibet, South Sudan, Papua New Guinea etc etc).
While there are obvious issues with a united Europe on our doorstep, I doubt if it will actually come to that. More likely without us to act as a restraining influence some crazy federalist will try and found a superstate and be bewildered as it collapses in a series of riots and revolutions.
Which, I should point out, is certainly not in our interests either.
Mr. Cocque, Charlemagne's realm crumbled because of unsound foundations. So did Napoleon's Empire. And the Third Reich. Rome's lasted a much longer time because it was based on realism and pragmatism.
The EU is an ideologically driven project with the mutually exclusive drives to integrate for the sake of unity and harmonisation, and to deviate to respect and represent the electorates of nation-states. It's somewhat akin to a star, with gravity battling against thermonuclear fusion. Sooner or later, gravity wins.
My point is the UK/English foreign policy has, for the past 400 years or so, always been devoted to maintaining a disunited Europe.
In that sense the UK has failed. Our theatrics haven't slowed down the emergence of the EU as a great european hegemonic power; by throwing our toys out of the pram we've almost certainly cleared a path for it to accelerate.
UK foreign policy hasn't yet evolved to deal with a world where we'll be subservient to the EU and the US, rather than just the US.
We coped with hegemonic European powers like the Hapsburg monarchy, and France, when we were a very small place by comparison.
To be fair to Boris much of his statement and talk of 'permanent limbo' would have resonated with Tory members and voters and Leavers. However I still think May stays for now to hopefully get at least a transition deal from the EU but if that has not produced a FTA by December 2020 and the date the transition period is due to end then there will be problems
If even HY's blind faith in Boris is shaken, just this little bit, those of us still with our feet on the ground can draw our own conclusions.....
The Tories have been in a state of permanent euro-limbo since 1990.
At some point the UK body politic will have to deal with a couple of key observations:
1) The EU will evolve into a full federal European state 2) The UK is now even more powerless to stop it than it was before
UK foreign policy has been in total denial about this geopolitical fact since the 1950s.
If it is A then Sweden, Denmark, much of Eastern Europe will join the UK, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland outside the EU
Ahh yes, the old "loads of countries are lining up to follow the UK down this rabbit hole of fuck" argument.
Honestly thought we'd seen the last of that, all things considered.
Not now no but given the overwhelming opposition to the Euro in Sweden and Denmark in polls both having already voted against the Euro in referenda and with the anti immigration Swedish Democrats leading many Swedish polls if it came to a forced choice between staying in a Federal EU with the Euro or leaving the EU and joining Norway and Iceland and Switzerland and the UK outside they would choose the latter course and rejoin an enlarged EFTA instead.
Poland and the Czech Republic would also likely leave as neither have any enthusiasm for a full Federal EU either
Good job for Brussels then that leaving is as near as fuck impossible to do......
In European naval news, whilst Germany has submarines that cannot go to sea, Spain has brand-new ones that firstly wouldn't float, and now don't fit into their dock:
My point is the UK/English foreign policy has, for the past 400 years or so, always been devoted to maintaining a disunited Europe.
In that sense the UK has failed. Our theatrics haven't slowed down the emergence of the EU as a great european hegemonic power; by throwing our toys out of the pram we've almost certainly cleared a path for it to accelerate.
UK foreign policy hasn't yet evolved to deal with a world where we'll be subservient to the EU and the US, rather than just the US.
Different era. Back then Europe was all the power of the globe (or our portion of it) so a solitary European hegemony would rule the world.
That's no longer the case. Take the blinkers off and see we operate on a global scale now. Even a United Europe would be less powerful than Napoleonic France on a global level.
He's as dishonest a politician as you'll find this side of the White House.
Yes, and how satisfying that two such dishonest politicians as Trump and Johnson should in the past few days have done so much to undermine their own credibility.
My point is the UK/English foreign policy has, for the past 400 years or so, always been devoted to maintaining a disunited Europe.
In that sense the UK has failed. Our theatrics haven't slowed down the emergence of the EU as a great european hegemonic power; by throwing our toys out of the pram we've almost certainly cleared a path for it to accelerate.
UK foreign policy hasn't yet evolved to deal with a world where we'll be subservient to the EU and the US, rather than just the US.
We coped with hegemonic European powers like the Hapsburg monarchy, and France, when we were a very small place by comparison.
We are on course to become the small, 2nd line country that we actually are, rather than the world-striding colossus that seems to infect the Brexiteer imagination.
We have damaged our reputation for good government, destroyed our reputation for diplomacy (thank you Boris and Miliband) and our reputation for tolerance is looking jaded as many foreigners stampede for the exits.
In European naval news, whilst Germany has submarines that cannot go to sea, Spain has brand-new ones that firstly wouldn't float, and now don't fit into their dock:
PM has now devoted the first 22 minutes of the show to Cliff Richard and itself. I know it is important, but is this REALLY the most important story of the day? The public are simply not being served by these news priorities.
We are indeed powerless to stop it. That's no reason to be part of it.
This is the wrong framing.
There are external geopolitical forces pushing us towards European integration and there are a large number of British people who want to play an active role in it. The question you have to ask yourself if you're not comfortable with it is to what extend it is worth resisting.
Ignoring it or pretending we can stand aside from it is not a viable option.
Obviously it is a viable option.
It just isn't an option you like.
It's not viable in the sense that it will lead to decades more navel gazing about Brexit, and you'll have to be permanently vigilant lest some future government decide to participate in some new scheme a bit too closely for your liking. It's no future anyone should want for this country.
Like I always say, we should have gone Communist in '23, then we needn't have to be forever vigilant lest some future government decide to get a bit too socialist. It's no way to live.
Why is Boris moaning about the Chequers agreement? It doesn't exist any more after his master Rees-Mogg destroyed it yesterday. Boris, do keep up!
Did you miss the PM at PMQs explaining why none of Mogg's amendments were of any consequence but reflected the already intentions of her inspirational Chequers proposal?
Delighted to see the back of Woodcock, I have thought to myself several times that we would have been better off if he'd actually lost his seat but it's worked out in the long run and voters will get a chance to try and elect a proper Labour MP.
Don't think I've commented on his suspension and the investigation into his behaviour but it does look a little cowardly running away.
As for Corbyn being as bad as Hodge that's rubbish. As someone on the council Hodge did have a responsibility for the places were the crimes took place.
Corbyn was informed and passed the information on. What he didn't do was what Tom Watson did and choose to pursue it himself.
Knowing what we know now you could say Corbyn should have done a Watson and Watson a Corbyn. That's only because we know the truth with hindsight though, Corbyn received a very little amount of information and passed it on. Tom Watson received more information (that we now know to be false) and I understand directly to him.
Call me crazy but I do think it's the polices responsibility to investigate people and make accusations. Politicians going off half cocked with very little evidence is not good. Though quite frankly I thinks it just a disgusting smear that reflects on the character of those who make it.
Welcome back Max and Malc!
He's not running away though is he? He's asked for the complaint to be investigated independently as, quite rightly he has no faith in Labour's internal procedures. These are the people that took two years to even move forward with a case against Corbyn ally Kelvin hopkins who the leader while he was supposedly under investigation but immediately leaked that Woodcock was subject to a complaint. None of us know about the nature of it, but would you have faith in a process governed by people who literally have told journalists they're "out to get" you?
Corbyn is turning Labour into a hive of hard left factionalism, where there's one rule for the ideologically pliant and another for apostates . We've seen with the SWP how that ends. In a few years a lot of people are going to be embarrassed they were complicit in Corbyn's transformation of Labour into a vile, racist, borderline insane excuse for a party.
My point is the UK/English foreign policy has, for the past 400 years or so, always been devoted to maintaining a disunited Europe.
In that sense the UK has failed. Our theatrics haven't slowed down the emergence of the EU as a great european hegemonic power; by throwing our toys out of the pram we've almost certainly cleared a path for it to accelerate.
UK foreign policy hasn't yet evolved to deal with a world where we'll be subservient to the EU and the US, rather than just the US.
We coped with hegemonic European powers like the Hapsburg monarchy, and France, when we were a very small place by comparison.
We are on course to become the small, 2nd line country that we actually are.
If that is we actually are, how can we be 'on course' to become it (we would already be there), and if that is what we actually are why is being what we are a bad thing? You make no sense.
Brexit is going very badly, but hysteria doesn't help either.
I don't get the 'yikes' comment. Whether one believes no deal would be a total disaster or would be ok, one thing all sides seem to agree on is that the government should have had plans and guidance for it a long time ago, so it sounds like good news, particularly since no deal is a much more likely outcome than any other right now.
Delighted to see the back of Woodcock, I have thought to myself several times that we would have been better off if he'd actually lost his seat but it's worked out in the long run and voters will get a chance to try and elect a proper Labour MP.
Don't think I've commented on his suspension and the investigation into his behaviour but it does look a little cowardly running away.
As for Corbyn being as bad as Hodge that's rubbish. As someone on the council Hodge did have a responsibility for the places were the crimes took place.
Corbyn was informed and passed the information on. What he didn't do was what Tom Watson did and choose to pursue it himself.
Knowing what we know now you could say Corbyn should have done a Watson and Watson a Corbyn. That's only because we know the truth with hindsight though, Corbyn received a very little amount of information and passed it on. Tom Watson received more information (that we now know to be false) and I understand directly to him.
Call me crazy but I do think it's the polices responsibility to investigate people and make accusations. Politicians going off half cocked with very little evidence is not good. Though quite frankly I thinks it just a disgusting smear that reflects on the character of those who make it.
Welcome back Max and Malc!
He's not running away though is he? He's asked for the complaint to be investigated independently as, quite rightly he has no faith in Labour's internal procedures. These are the people that took two years to even move forward with a case against Corbyn ally Kelvin hopkins who the leader while he was supposedly under investigation but immediately leaked that Woodcock was subject to a complaint. None of us know about the nature of it, but would you have faith in a process governed by people who literally have told journalists they're "out to get" you?
Corbyn is turning Labour into a hive of hard left factionalism, where there's one rule for the ideologically pliant and another for apostates . We've seen with the SWP how that ends. In a few years a lot of people are going to be embarrassed they were complicit in Corbyn's transformation of Labour into a vile, racist, borderline insane excuse for a party.
41% and 5% ahead (no longer a mainstream electoral force.)
Mr. Cocque, Charlemagne's realm crumbled because of unsound foundations. So did Napoleon's Empire. And the Third Reich. Rome's lasted a much longer time because it was based on realism and pragmatism.
The EU is an ideologically driven project with the mutually exclusive drives to integrate for the sake of unity and harmonisation, and to deviate to respect and represent the electorates of nation-states. It's somewhat akin to a star, with gravity battling against thermonuclear fusion. Sooner or later, gravity wins.
It's not in our best interests for that to happen.
Which is why I think the UK needs to stop pretending that a federal EU state isn't going to happen, and make our peace with a world where it is.
Note: I'm not saying we should be a part of that state, but we should definitely change tack from trying to stop it (it's way too late for that) to wishing it well and helping it be stable and successful.
Mr. Cocque, Charlemagne's realm crumbled because of unsound foundations. So did Napoleon's Empire. And the Third Reich. Rome's lasted a much longer time because it was based on realism and pragmatism.
The EU is an ideologically driven project with the mutually exclusive drives to integrate for the sake of unity and harmonisation, and to deviate to respect and represent the electorates of nation-states. It's somewhat akin to a star, with gravity battling against thermonuclear fusion. Sooner or later, gravity wins.
It's not in our best interests for that to happen.
Which is why I think the UK needs to stop pretending that a federal EU state isn't going to happen, and make our peace with a world where it is.
Note: I'm not saying we should be a part of that state, but we should definitely change tack from trying to stop it (it's way too late for that) to wishing it well and helping it be stable and successful.
Interesting that no one on the Remain side advocated this position...
Think whatever happens re leadership ERG etc Boris has morphed into yesterdays man
There are still many true believers in him, though personally I don't know what they see in him. Sure, he has a level of charisma, but he's simply not reliable in any position, and his defenses of his positioning are often pretty weak, so he seems to have so many weaknesses. It feels like they would need to take a gamble when it comes to May successors.
PM has now devoted the first 22 minutes of the show to Cliff Richard and itself. I know it is important, but is this REALLY the most important story of the day? The public are simply not being served by these news priorities.
The BBC really loses the plot when it is the focus of the news. I expect tonight there will be a Newsnight pull-out-and-keep two hour souvenir special....
Mr. Cocque, Charlemagne's realm crumbled because of unsound foundations. So did Napoleon's Empire. And the Third Reich. Rome's lasted a much longer time because it was based on realism and pragmatism.
The EU is an ideologically driven project with the mutually exclusive drives to integrate for the sake of unity and harmonisation, and to deviate to respect and represent the electorates of nation-states. It's somewhat akin to a star, with gravity battling against thermonuclear fusion. Sooner or later, gravity wins.
It's not in our best interests for that to happen.
Which is why I think the UK needs to stop pretending that a federal EU state isn't going to happen, and make our peace with a world where it is.
Note: I'm not saying we should be a part of that state, but we should definitely change tack from trying to stop it (it's way too late for that) to wishing it well and helping it be stable and successful.
Fundamentally that was the problem. That's what enough of them want, and not enough of us want. I didn't and don't think that us being a millstone around what they want to do was good for them or us, it just created resentment and bitterness, and it is why if we remain after all or rejoin we would need to be all in. And if we don't remain or rejoin I don't need to see them collapse - it'd be none of my business what their political aims were, and I'd just want us and them to work together well as much as a new relationship allows.
Mr. Cocque, Charlemagne's realm crumbled because of unsound foundations. So did Napoleon's Empire. And the Third Reich. Rome's lasted a much longer time because it was based on realism and pragmatism.
The EU is an ideologically driven project with the mutually exclusive drives to integrate for the sake of unity and harmonisation, and to deviate to respect and represent the electorates of nation-states. It's somewhat akin to a star, with gravity battling against thermonuclear fusion. Sooner or later, gravity wins.
It's not in our best interests for that to happen.
Which is why I think the UK needs to stop pretending that a federal EU state isn't going to happen, and make our peace with a world where it is.
Note: I'm not saying we should be a part of that state, but we should definitely change tack from trying to stop it (it's way too late for that) to wishing it well and helping it be stable and successful.
The problem is that it is not and never will be a nation state in the old-fashioned sense, and certainly won't appear that way to us being so close to it. That's why it would continue to confound us even if we decided to try to be a Canada to its USA or whatever comparison you want to make. We are equivalent to France and Germany in a way that Canada is not equivalent to California or Michigan.
My point is the UK/English foreign policy has, for the past 400 years or so, always been devoted to maintaining a disunited Europe.
In that sense the UK has failed. Our theatrics haven't slowed down the emergence of the EU as a great european hegemonic power; by throwing our toys out of the pram we've almost certainly cleared a path for it to accelerate.
UK foreign policy hasn't yet evolved to deal with a world where we'll be subservient to the EU and the US, rather than just the US.
We coped with hegemonic European powers like the Hapsburg monarchy, and France, when we were a very small place by comparison.
We are on course to become the small, 2nd line country that we actually are, rather than the world-striding colossus that seems to infect the Brexiteer imagination.
We have damaged our reputation for good government, destroyed our reputation for diplomacy (thank you Boris and Miliband) and our reputation for tolerance is looking jaded as many foreigners stampede for the exits.
This is Brexit.
Net inward migration in 2017 was 280,000. Not exactly a stampeding for the exits.
To be fair to Boris much of his statement and talk of 'permanent limbo' would have resonated with Tory members and voters and Leavers. However I still think May stays for now to hopefully get at least a transition deal from the EU but if that has not produced a FTA by December 2020 and the date the transition period is due to end then there will be problems
If even HY's blind faith in Boris is shaken, just this little bit, those of us still with our feet on the ground can draw our own conclusions.....
When did I say it was 'shaken'? I remain of the view only Boris is likely to win a small majority against Corbyn with Javid having a smaller chance of doing so.
While I back May's deal for now if she or any other Tory other than those two leads the party into the next general election Corbyn will become PM even if he fails to win a majority and cobbles together deals with minor parties instead
The Tories have been in a state of permanent euro-limbo since 1990.
At some point the UK body politic will have to deal with a couple of key observations:
1) The EU will evolve into a full federal European state 2) The UK is now even more powerless to stop it than it was before
UK foreign policy has been in total denial about this geopolitical fact since the 1950s.
If it is A then Sweden, Denmark, much of Eastern Europe will join the UK, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland outside the EU
Ahh yes, the old "loads of countries are lining up to follow the UK down this rabbit hole of fuck" argument.
Honestly thought we'd seen the last of that, all things considered.
Not now no but given the overwhelming opposition to the Euro in Sweden and Denmark in polls both having already voted against the Euro in referenda and with the anti immigration Swedish Democrats leading many Swedish polls if it came to a forced choice between staying in a Federal EU with the Euro or leaving the EU and joining Norway and Iceland and Switzerland and the UK outside they would choose the latter course and rejoin an enlarged EFTA instead.
Poland and the Czech Republic would also likely leave as neither have any enthusiasm for a full Federal EU either
Good job for Brussels then that leaving is as near as fuck impossible to do......
I don't know why you OMG that - plenty of people even on here state that we and others would never actually adhere to article 5. That makes the whole organisation pretty pointless I would think, but if people far more reasonable than Trump think that, of course he does.
PM has now devoted the first 22 minutes of the show to Cliff Richard and itself. I know it is important, but is this REALLY the most important story of the day? The public are simply not being served by these news priorities.
The BBC really loses the plot when it is the focus of the news. I expect tonight there will be a Newsnight pull-out-and-keep two hour souvenir special....
Indeed. They devoted 7 entire minutes to the (not insignificant) political events of the day. That is in total. PMQ's, Brexit, Boris' speech, ructions within the Tory Party, Labour with Hodge and Woodcock, the 1922 commitee...
What I find interesting is that he bothered to backtrack his previous comments a little. He doesn't normally do that, and he clearly doesn't believe his own backtrack given fresh comments, so why on this was he persuadable to at least try to make some corrective noises about it?
The Tories have been in a state of permanent euro-limbo since 1990.
At some point the UK body politic will have to deal with a couple of key observations:
1) The EU will evolve into a full federal European state 2) The UK is now even more powerless to stop it than it was before
UK foreign policy has been in total denial about this geopolitical fact since the 1950s.
If it is A then Sweden, Denmark, much of Eastern Europe will join the UK, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland outside the EU
Ahh yes, the old "loads of countries are lining up to follow the UK down this rabbit hole of fuck" argument.
Honestly thought we'd seen the last of that, all things considered.
Not now no but given the overwhelming opposition to the Euro in Sweden and Denmark in polls both having already voted against the Euro in referenda and with the anti immigration Swedish Democrats leading many Swedish polls if it came to a forced choice between staying in a Federal EU with the Euro or leaving the EU and joining Norway and Iceland and Switzerland and the UK outside they would choose the latter course and rejoin an enlarged EFTA instead.
Poland and the Czech Republic would also likely leave as neither have any enthusiasm for a full Federal EU either
Good job for Brussels then that leaving is as near as fuck impossible to do......
.....by design.
But not impossible as we have just showed
Heh. I'm sure in Brussels, the EU had a committee looking into how it would work if somebody tried.
"Don't worry, nobody would be bat-shit crazy enough to even think about - FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!"
My point is the UK/English foreign policy has, for the past 400 years or so, always been devoted to maintaining a disunited Europe.
In that sense the UK has failed. Our theatrics haven't slowed down the emergence of the EU as a great european hegemonic power; by throwing our toys out of the pram we've almost certainly cleared a path for it to accelerate.
UK foreign policy hasn't yet evolved to deal with a world where we'll be subservient to the EU and the US, rather than just the US.
We coped with hegemonic European powers like the Hapsburg monarchy, and France, when we were a very small place by comparison.
We are on course to become the small, 2nd line country that we actually are, rather than the world-striding colossus that seems to infect the Brexiteer imagination.
We have damaged our reputation for good government, destroyed our reputation for diplomacy (thank you Boris and Miliband) and our reputation for tolerance is looking jaded as many foreigners stampede for the exits.
This is Brexit.
Net inward migration in 2017 was 280,000. Not exactly a stampeding for the exits.
Quite - the level of 'fake news' form some on here makes any sense of rational discussion unachievable.
PM has now devoted the first 22 minutes of the show to Cliff Richard and itself. I know it is important, but is this REALLY the most important story of the day? The public are simply not being served by these news priorities.
The BBC really loses the plot when it is the focus of the news. I expect tonight there will be a Newsnight pull-out-and-keep two hour souvenir special....
Indeed. They devoted 7 entire minutes to the (not insignificant) political events of the day. That is in total. PMQ's, Brexit, Boris' speech, ructions within the Tory Party, Labour with Hodge and Woodcock, the 1922 commitee...
PMQs happens every week, is it a big deal? Bors's speech, sure, more of a deal, but it's easy to sum up. The Tory party have been having ructions for months at the least, Woodcock and Hodge are merely individuals, not big news, and the 1922 committee is...IDK
I don't actually disagree with your point, but the shambles of our present politics is sufficiently repetitive and messy that I can see brevity being as much as is needed.
PM has now devoted the first 22 minutes of the show to Cliff Richard and itself. I know it is important, but is this REALLY the most important story of the day? The public are simply not being served by these news priorities.
The BBC really loses the plot when it is the focus of the news. I expect tonight there will be a Newsnight pull-out-and-keep two hour souvenir special....
Indeed. They devoted 7 entire minutes to the (not insignificant) political events of the day. That is in total. PMQ's, Brexit, Boris' speech, ructions within the Tory Party, Labour with Hodge and Woodcock, the 1922 commitee...
Do you think it’s possible you’re slightly more interested in politics than the typical viewer?
I wish I had that optimism. I don't know what it is based on though. Brinkmanship is difficult to overcome, and we the public don't make it easy to climb down from it.
I would make a terrible negotiator though; too easily knocked out of sorts.
I don't know why you OMG that - plenty of people even on here state that we and others would never actually adhere to article 5. That makes the whole organisation pretty pointless I would think, but if people far more reasonable than Trump think that, of course he does.
Only people who can't think more than two steps ahead think that. They are not "reasonable". Thry are the loons on left and right.
It's also worth considering this is the man who thinks NATO expanding to Poland is "provocative" but Russia annexxing parts of its neighbours is perfectly justified.
I don't know why you OMG that - plenty of people even on here state that we and others would never actually adhere to article 5. That makes the whole organisation pretty pointless I would think, but if people far more reasonable than Trump think that, of course he does.
So, EUTO. People complain about the EU being hegemonic, but it doesn't look very hegemonic to me to outsource defence of your own borders to a protection racketeer on the other side of the world. To the US Montenegro is a far away country they've never bloody heard of, and if Trump decides to suspend it from NATO for fancied non compliance with a 2% rule i don't see anyone objecting.
Cliff is being interviewed by a total moron on ITV. It must have taken a lot of restraint not to walk out.
He’s been doing this for longer than most of us have been alive.
While I’m glad he won - the BBC’s reporting was grossly intrusive - I am worried about the judgment that says “any reporting of the search” was intrusive - I think a simple one line statement would have sufficed in case there were any potential victims who hadn’t come forward. But live broadcasting from a helicopter of the search!
I don't know why you OMG that - plenty of people even on here state that we and others would never actually adhere to article 5. That makes the whole organisation pretty pointless I would think, but if people far more reasonable than Trump think that, of course he does.
Only people who can't think more than two steps ahead think that. They are not "reasonable". Thry are the loons on left and right.
It's also worth considering this is the man who thinks NATO expanding to Poland is "provocative" but Russia annexxing parts of its neighbours is perfectly justified.
They are reasonable on many other matters was the point, which Trump frequently is not. I also said 'more reasonable that Trump', which is not a high bar.
I don't agree with him, but it is not surprising he thinks that and would say so, given how many others already say it.
What I find interesting is that he bothered to backtrack his previous comments a little. He doesn't normally do that, and he clearly doesn't believe his own backtrack given fresh comments, so why on this was he persuadable to at least try to make some corrective noises about it?
He's done it several times now when something dominates the news, like with the school shooting. He backtracks unconvincingly, but it's enough to defuse the tension and then he flips again when the media attention begins to move on.
It's a strategy to deflect criticism and it works.
PM has now devoted the first 22 minutes of the show to Cliff Richard and itself. I know it is important, but is this REALLY the most important story of the day? The public are simply not being served by these news priorities.
The BBC really loses the plot when it is the focus of the news. I expect tonight there will be a Newsnight pull-out-and-keep two hour souvenir special....
Indeed. They devoted 7 entire minutes to the (not insignificant) political events of the day. That is in total. PMQ's, Brexit, Boris' speech, ructions within the Tory Party, Labour with Hodge and Woodcock, the 1922 commitee...
Do you think it’s possible you’re slightly more interested in politics than the typical viewer?
I do love reporting sometimes - the story on the Spanish submarine too big for its dock was already hilarious, but then when describing its earlier troubles
The original problem with the submarine dates back to 2013, when it was discovered that it was about 100 tons heavier than it needed to be.
That caused a problem for its buoyancy - so it could submerge, but might not come back up again.
"A problem for its buoyancy". I would say so. What a wonderfully subdued way of putting it. If it doesn't come back up again after submerging, it's not a submarine, it's just a rock.
What I find interesting is that he bothered to backtrack his previous comments a little. He doesn't normally do that, and he clearly doesn't believe his own backtrack given fresh comments, so why on this was he persuadable to at least try to make some corrective noises about it?
He's done it several times now when something dominates the news, like with the school shooting. He backtracks unconvincingly, but it's enough to defuse the tension and then he flips again when the media attention begins to move on.
It's a strategy to deflect criticism and it works.
I guess it does. Works well enough to get 4 more years? I hope not. But it's gotten him this far.
I don't wish to belabor the point, but how can she be in the same party which is led by an anti-semite? (her description, reportedly, she was apparently much stronger on that point than anyone else has been re Corbyn's personal culpability). It surely is not a sustainable position. She would not need to alter her voting pattern by not taking the Labour whip after all, so it is only a question of what the position would be for the next election and the party, and would she really stand for them if they have not resolved their problems on the issue by then?
I don't know why you OMG that - plenty of people even on here state that we and others would never actually adhere to article 5. That makes the whole organisation pretty pointless I would think, but if people far more reasonable than Trump think that, of course he does.
Only people who can't think more than two steps ahead think that. They are not "reasonable". Thry are the loons on left and right.
It's also worth considering this is the man who thinks NATO expanding to Poland is "provocative" but Russia annexxing parts of its neighbours is perfectly justified.
A bit incoherent, surely? Your second para is rather strong evidence that the loons of your first have a point.
On Boulton's tweet - didn't the EU have far fewer competences back then?
It did, but you really would be dancing on pin-heads to use that as a justification for what Boris said. As ever he was talking complete crap.
Absolutely not it is an excellent point.
Thatcher in the 80s overturned a lot of what was then established laws and policies in order to transform the economy. A lot of shibboleths were tackled. The EEC lacked competencies on those areas and Parliament was sovereign so Parliament could make the reforms.
A future Thatcher wanting to tackle current shibboleths in the same way won't be able to within Parliament if the EU has those competences.
A future Thatcher would have to operate on a larger stage and win the political debate for change across the EU.
You might argue that would be impossible, but then that's what people said about Thatcher's task before she did it.
No Thatcher didn't have to win the debate for her changes across the EU, she had to win the debate within the UK. Not requiring France's permission for her reforms.
Call me crazy but I do think it's the polices responsibility to investigate people and make accusations.
Well, if you believe that you are certainly crazy. I'm going to assume that you meant 'politicians,' however.
As it happens however you are in error. He received information that a child rape gang was operating in his constituency, that enquiries were being blocked, and he took no action to unblock them.
Now as I pointed out legally under the laws of the time he was probably correct in this action. However, given his habit of speaking out on every other matter that attracted his attention, it is to say the least surprising (edit - and disappointing) that he didn't make a thing of this when he could actually have done something positive.
As for disgusting smear - the problem with Corbyn is it's very nearly impossible to smear him, because it's hard to come up with anything worse than the truth. He has made common cause with mass murderers, supported Holocaust Deniers, kept silent about child sexual abuse in his constituency and admits repeatedly lying in his 'fully costed' manifesto. What could possibly be said that's worse than that?
Yeah I edited that, got confused half way through between police should and politicians shouldn't.
He received information and passed the information on, he didn't receive proof anymore than Tom Watson received proof.
Haven't you been critical of Watson for what he did when he similarly received proof? Of course we know now that the proof Corbyn saw was factual and the proof Watson saw was not. We however only now that with hindsight. Criticising one for passing the information on and the other for choosing to pursue it himself appears hypocritical.
Corbyn campaigns for what he believes in and what he would like the public to believe in. Much the same as eurosceptics talk about Europe endlessly Corbyn talks about various left wing causes endlessly.
Almost all left wingers and eurosveptics would say that paedophillia isn't worse than right wing policies or the EU, but they don't need to campaign on these issues. Almost everyone agrees paedophillia is bad, it's not even like racism where it is largely looked down on but you do have a decent section of society who are proud of it.
I imagine Corbyn is impossible to smear In your eyes as he is already the devil fortunately have general public have a more balanced view.
Delighted to see the back of Woodcock, I have thought to myself several times that we would have been better off if he'd actually lost his seat but it's worked out in the long run and voters will get a chance to try and elect a proper Labour MP.
Don't think I've commented on his suspension and the investigation into his behaviour but it does look a little cowardly running away.
As for Corbyn being as bad as Hodge that's rubbish. As someone on the council Hodge did have a responsibility for!
He's not running away though is he? He's asked for the complaint to be investigated independently as, quite rightly he has no faith in Labour's internal procedures. These are the people that took two years to even move forward with a case against Corbyn ally Kelvin hopkins who the leader while he was supposedly under investigation but immediately leaked that Woodcock was subject to a complaint. None of us know about the nature of it, but would you have faith in a process governed by people who literally have told journalists they're "out to get" you?
Corbyn is turning Labour into a hive of hard left factionalism, where there's one rule for the ideologically pliant and another for apostates . We've seen with the SWP how that ends. In a few years a lot of people are going to be embarrassed they were complicit in Corbyn's transformation of Labour into a vile, racist, borderline insane excuse for a party.
Marc Wadsworth.
If anything Labour complaints procedure is slanted against Corbyn supporters and their allies to please the baying right wing press who had smeared Marc as some kind of anti Semite for months on end whereas upon seeing the video evidence very few people agreed.
He was of course kicked out for bringing the party into disrepute!!
There are hundreds of people on the right of the Labour Party who have done far more to bring it into disrepute than Marc, why was he targeted? Because he is a Corbyn supporter.
The hard right Blairites have been trying to destroy the party for a number of years now, it is them who have brought the factionalism down on themselves by their refusal to listen to the members and not have a Labour Party which is barely distinguishable from the Tories.
The racism smear is tired and old now, I oppose the occupation of Palestine and no amount of people who couldn't care less about the suffering of the Palestinians but who would be up in arms if White Christians were treated the same way is going to change my mind on that.
I would rather Labour lost elections than abandon the Palestinans completely because of their skin colour and religion because that would be racist.
Comments
Honestly thought we'd seen the last of that, all things considered.
1. It would require us to open up our food sector to their products.
- The good news is this means cheaper food
- But it means that British farmers (who operate to higher standards, and therefore costs) would be disadvantaged
- It also means we would lose the ability to (for example) require that GM food was labelled as such (see Monsanto vs Province of Quebec)
2. It would require us to sign up to a dispute recognition mechanism that is potentially more one sided than the ECJ. If we assume the NAFTA system is replicated, it means that three man tribunals consisting of two American and one British judge decide things. Furthermore, these operate in secrecy and have the right to overturn British laws if they are judged to have created barriers.
3. They would likely require us to keep our intellectual property laws in lock step with the US. Now, as it happens, I have no particular dislike of US intellectual property laws, but I do dislike the idea that if Congress passes a bill, without any consultation or right of refusal on our behalf, that we are obliged to copy.
Poland and the Czech Republic would also likely leave as neither have any enthusiasm for a full Federal EU either
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44871788
Don't think I've commented on his suspension and the investigation into his behaviour but it does look a little cowardly running away.
As for Corbyn being as bad as Hodge that's rubbish. As someone on the council Hodge did have a responsibility for the places were the crimes took place.
Corbyn was informed and passed the information on. What he didn't do was what Tom Watson did and choose to pursue it himself.
Knowing what we know now you could say Corbyn should have done a Watson and Watson a Corbyn. That's only because we know the truth with hindsight though, Corbyn received a very little amount of information and passed it on. Tom Watson received more information (that we now know to be false) and I understand directly to him.
Call me crazy but I do think it's the polices responsibility to investigate people and make accusations. Politicians going off half cocked with very little evidence is not good. Though quite frankly I thinks it just a disgusting smear that reflects on the character of those who make it.
Welcome back Max and Malc!
2) We are indeed powerless to stop it. That's no reason to be part of it.
I don't think she said anything nearly as witty in her entire career.
There are external geopolitical forces pushing us towards European integration and there are a large number of British people who want to play an active role in it. The question you have to ask yourself if you're not comfortable with it is to what extend it is worth resisting.
Ignoring it or pretending we can stand aside from it is not a viable option.
As it happens however you are in error. He received information that a child rape gang was operating in his constituency, that enquiries were being blocked, and he took no action to unblock them.
Now as I pointed out legally under the laws of the time he was probably correct in this action. However, given his habit of speaking out on every other matter that attracted his attention, it is to say the least surprising (edit - and disappointing) that he didn't make a thing of this when he could actually have done something positive.
As for disgusting smear - the problem with Corbyn is it's very nearly impossible to smear him, because it's hard to come up with anything worse than the truth. He has made common cause with mass murderers, supported Holocaust Deniers, kept silent about child sexual abuse in his constituency and admits repeatedly lying in his 'fully costed' manifesto. What could possibly be said that's worse than that?
It just isn't an option you like.
You might argue that would be impossible, but then that's what people said about Thatcher's task before she did it.
In that sense the UK has failed. Our theatrics haven't slowed down the emergence of the EU as a great european hegemonic power; by throwing our toys out of the pram we've almost certainly cleared a path for it to accelerate.
UK foreign policy hasn't yet evolved to deal with a world where we'll be subservient to the EU and the US, rather than just the US.
While there are obvious issues with a united Europe on our doorstep, I doubt if it will actually come to that. More likely without us to act as a restraining influence some crazy federalist will try and found a superstate and be bewildered as it collapses in a series of riots and revolutions.
Which, I should point out, is certainly not in our interests either.
The EU is an ideologically driven project with the mutually exclusive drives to integrate for the sake of unity and harmonisation, and to deviate to respect and represent the electorates of nation-states. It's somewhat akin to a star, with gravity battling against thermonuclear fusion. Sooner or later, gravity wins.
.....by design.
Welcome back, BTW.
That's no longer the case. Take the blinkers off and see we operate on a global scale now. Even a United Europe would be less powerful than Napoleonic France on a global level.
We have damaged our reputation for good government, destroyed our reputation for diplomacy (thank you Boris and Miliband) and our reputation for tolerance is looking jaded as many foreigners stampede for the exits.
This is Brexit.
Though you can thank Brown and Labour for the entire carrier mess. Though I daresay you won't.
Edit: ah, the chart goes to happier times before the referendum.
Pathetic resignation speech.
Corbyn is turning Labour into a hive of hard left factionalism, where there's one rule for the ideologically pliant and another for apostates . We've seen with the SWP how that ends. In a few years a lot of people are going to be embarrassed they were complicit in Corbyn's transformation of Labour into a vile, racist, borderline insane excuse for a party.
Brexit is going very badly, but hysteria doesn't help either.
Which is why I think the UK needs to stop pretending that a federal EU state isn't going to happen, and make our peace with a world where it is.
Note: I'm not saying we should be a part of that state, but we should definitely change tack from trying to stop it (it's way too late for that) to wishing it well and helping it be stable and successful.
https://twitter.com/A_B_Evans/status/1019630802471194626
While I back May's deal for now if she or any other Tory other than those two leads the party into the next general election Corbyn will become PM even if he fails to win a majority and cobbles together deals with minor parties instead
Although if Trump just refused to send troops what could anyone do?
Funny that Montenegro was the one he mentioned. The Russians have been meddling in there iirc.
"Don't worry, nobody would be bat-shit crazy enough to even think about - FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!"
I don't actually disagree with your point, but the shambles of our present politics is sufficiently repetitive and messy that I can see brevity being as much as is needed.
I would make a terrible negotiator though; too easily knocked out of sorts.
It's also worth considering this is the man who thinks NATO expanding to Poland is "provocative" but Russia annexxing parts of its neighbours is perfectly justified.
While I’m glad he won - the BBC’s reporting was grossly intrusive - I am worried about the judgment that says “any reporting of the search” was intrusive - I think a simple one line statement would have sufficed in case there were any potential victims who hadn’t come forward. But live broadcasting from a helicopter of the search!
I don't agree with him, but it is not surprising he thinks that and would say so, given how many others already say it.
It's a strategy to deflect criticism and it works.
I wonder what Corbyn makes of this?
https://twitter.com/duncanrobinson/status/1019640575803449349
The original problem with the submarine dates back to 2013, when it was discovered that it was about 100 tons heavier than it needed to be.
That caused a problem for its buoyancy - so it could submerge, but might not come back up again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44871788
"A problem for its buoyancy". I would say so. What a wonderfully subdued way of putting it. If it doesn't come back up again after submerging, it's not a submarine, it's just a rock.
He received information and passed the information on, he didn't receive proof anymore than Tom Watson received proof.
Haven't you been critical of Watson for what he did when he similarly received proof? Of course we know now that the proof Corbyn saw was factual and the proof Watson saw was not. We however only now that with hindsight. Criticising one for passing the information on and the other for choosing to pursue it himself appears hypocritical.
Corbyn campaigns for what he believes in and what he would like the public to believe in. Much the same as eurosceptics talk about Europe endlessly Corbyn talks about various left wing causes endlessly.
Almost all left wingers and eurosveptics would say that paedophillia isn't worse than right wing policies or the EU, but they don't need to campaign on these issues. Almost everyone agrees paedophillia is bad, it's not even like racism where it is largely looked down on but you do have a decent section of society who are proud of it.
I imagine Corbyn is impossible to smear In your eyes as he is already the devil fortunately have general public have a more balanced view.
If anything Labour complaints procedure is slanted against Corbyn supporters and their allies to please the baying right wing press who had smeared Marc as some kind of anti Semite for months on end whereas upon seeing the video evidence very few people agreed.
He was of course kicked out for bringing the party into disrepute!!
There are hundreds of people on the right of the Labour Party who have done far more to bring it into disrepute than Marc, why was he targeted? Because he is a Corbyn supporter.
The hard right Blairites have been trying to destroy the party for a number of years now, it is them who have brought the factionalism down on themselves by their refusal to listen to the members and not have a Labour Party which is barely distinguishable from the Tories.
The racism smear is tired and old now, I oppose the occupation of Palestine and no amount of people who couldn't care less about the suffering of the Palestinians but who would be up in arms if White Christians were treated the same way is going to change my mind on that.
I would rather Labour lost elections than abandon the Palestinans completely because of their skin colour and religion because that would be racist.