I wonder whether he'd give two hoots about the CTA were Britain and Ireland not in the EU. After all, it'd just be the bilateral agreement it always was then, with a small neighbour. My guess is that his problem is not the CTA with the 5m people of Ireland (and the implied economic alignment that comes with the CTA), but the fact that Dublin's hands are tied by the 450m-person strong EU27, which places a rather different dynamic on the relationship.
"Dublin's hands are tied" is just a condescending way of saying "we can't bully Dublin".
In a sense, yes it is. That is precisely JRM's objection. That said, I think 'bully' is the wrong word or phrase; 'ride roughshod over' would probably be more accurate. I don't think Mogg wants to actively bully Ireland; more that he'd rather it trailed along in Britain's wake.
But really, as I said earlier, I don't think he's fussed about Ireland at all (hence his ignorant comments), other than how the NI border issue affects the future UK-EU relationship.
As usual JRM is quite right. The position of NI cannot be allowed to dictate the entire Brexit process. We have to balance the interests of all parts of the UK - nobody gets a veto. It is Remainers who have tried to assert that NI trumps all, simply because they and their EU allies think it will derail Brexit.
In fact, NI is a solvable problem that will now not get solved because the Remainer obsession with NI will force us into No Deal. Not sure how you blame this on JRM. We should never even consider letting the threat of violence undermine the rights of the majority of the UK public that voted to leave the EU, which of course meant leaving the SM and CU.
So in fact, JRM was right to say that all options need to be considered for the NI border. The rantings of the Remainer core on this site really just betrays how scared they are of JRM. If they really thought he was an idiot of no consequence, they wouldn't need to spend so much effort on him would they.....
I wonder whether he'd give two hoots about the CTA were Britain and Ireland not in the EU. After all, it'd just be the bilateral agreement it always was then, with a small neighbour. My guess is that his problem is not the CTA with the 5m people of Ireland (and the implied economic alignment that comes with the CTA), but the fact that Dublin's hands are tied by the 450m-person strong EU27, which places a rather different dynamic on the relationship.
"Dublin's hands are tied" is just a condescending way of saying "we can't bully Dublin".
In a sense, yes it is. That is precisely JRM's objection. That said, I think 'bully' is the wrong word or phrase; 'ride roughshod over' would probably be more accurate. I don't think Mogg wants to actively bully Ireland; more that he'd rather it trailed along in Britain's wake.
But really, as I said earlier, I don't think he's fussed about Ireland at all (hence his ignorant comments), other than how the NI border issue affects the future UK-EU relationship.
As usual JRM is quite right. The position of NI cannot be allowed to dictate the entire Brexit process. We have to balance the interests of all parts of the UK - nobody gets a veto. It is Remainers who have tried to assert that NI trumps all, simply because they and their EU allies think it will derail Brexit.
In fact, NI is a solvable problem that will now not get solved because the Remainer obsession with NI will force us into No Deal. Not sure how you blame this on JRM. We should never even consider letting the threat of violence undermine the rights of the majority of the UK public that voted to leave the EU, which of course meant leaving the SM and CU.
So in fact, JRM was right to say that all options need to be considered for the NI border. The rantings of the Remainer core on this site really just betrays how scared they are of JRM. If they really thought he was an idiot of no consequence, they wouldn't need to spend so much effort on him would they.....
Yes, a good article, but I think perhaps misleading in one important respect. Because Ireland is not part of Schengen, the passport checks for an EU citizen flying to Dublin are identical in scope to those applying to an EU citizen flying to London. So JRM's premise is wrong from the start, even if in practice passport checks in both cases are pretty minimal. As the article says, the operation of the CTA relies on the UK cooperating with Ireland on enforcing more-or-less consistent border controls. Our membership or not of the EU is irrelevant.
Is it possible that Ireland remained out of Schengen due to the fact that we were staying out of Schengen and we had the CTA?
If so, why should they stay out of Schengen any longer after we leave? I hate to say that JRM might have a point, but on this, it may be possible - at least, at some point after we complete Brexit.
I wonder whether he'd give two hoots about the CTA were Britain and Ireland not in the EU. After all, it'd just be the bilateral agreement it always was then, with a small neighbour. My guess is that his problem is not the CTA with the 5m people of Ireland (and the implied economic alignment that comes with the CTA), but the fact that Dublin's hands are tied by the 450m-person strong EU27, which places a rather different dynamic on the relationship.
"Dublin's hands are tied" is just a condescending way of saying "we can't bully Dublin".
In a sense, yes it is. That is precisely JRM's objection. That said, I think 'bully' is the wrong word or phrase; 'ride roughshod over' would probably be more accurate. I don't think Mogg wants to actively bully Ireland; more that he'd rather it trailed along in Britain's wake.
But really, as I said earlier, I don't think he's fussed about Ireland at all (hence his ignorant comments), other than how the NI border issue affects the future UK-EU relationship.
As usual JRM is quite right. The position of NI cannot be allowed to dictate the entire Brexit process. We have to balance the interests of all parts of the UK - nobody gets a veto. It is Remainers who have tried to assert that NI trumps all, simply because they and their EU allies think it will derail Brexit.
In fact, NI is a solvable problem that will now not get solved because the Remainer obsession with NI will force us into No Deal. Not sure how you blame this on JRM. We should never even consider letting the threat of violence undermine the rights of the majority of the UK public that voted to leave the EU, which of course meant leaving the SM and CU.
So in fact, JRM was right to say that all options need to be considered for the NI border. The rantings of the Remainer core on this site really just betrays how scared they are of JRM. If they really thought he was an idiot of no consequence, they wouldn't need to spend so much effort on him would they.....
Simon Coveney the Irish Foreign Minister stated yesterday the chances of a No Deal are extremely small. He must know something PBers dont. How ?
Yes, a good article, but I think perhaps misleading in one important respect. Because Ireland is not part of Schengen, the passport checks for an EU citizen flying to Dublin are identical in scope to those applying to an EU citizen flying to London. So JRM's premise is wrong from the start, even if in practice passport checks in both cases are pretty minimal. As the article says, the operation of the CTA relies on the UK cooperating with Ireland on enforcing more-or-less consistent border controls. Our membership or not of the EU is irrelevant.
Is it possible that Ireland remained out of Schengen due to the fact that we were staying out of Schengen and we had the CTA?
If so, why should they stay out of Schengen any longer after we leave? I hate to say that JRM might have a point, but on this, it may be possible - at least, at some point after we complete Brexit.
Joining Schengen would require them to impose a very hard border with NI, with passport checks for all on entry and exit. That said, there's little doubt that if Ireland reunified tomorrow, it'd be applying to join Schengen the day after.
...This matters of course because unless I've missed it, we still don't seem to have implemented the registration process for EU citizens resident in the UK and unless and until you know who is already here, and when they arrived, any other EU citizens can present their EU passports and say "I've been here for 20 years"....
Presumably it will be done by the EU citizen filling in an (on-line) form, and the bureaucrats cross-checking against National Insurance records. I don't think border crossing records will come into it at all, not least because they are so incomplete.
That's fine and relatively simple for the majority of people, but it's always the exceptions that cause problems, just as we have seen with the Windrush debacle.
I wonder whether he'd give two hoots about the CTA were Britain and Ireland not in the EU. After all, it'd just be the bilateral agreement it always was then, with a small neighbour. My guess is that his problem is not the CTA with the 5m people of Ireland (and the implied economic alignment that comes with the CTA), but the fact that Dublin's hands are tied by the 450m-person strong EU27, which places a rather different dynamic on the relationship.
"Dublin's hands are tied" is just a condescending way of saying "we can't bully Dublin".
In a sense, yes it is. That is precisely JRM's objection. That said, I think 'bully' is the wrong word or phrase; 'ride roughshod over' would probably be more accurate. I don't think Mogg wants to actively bully Ireland; more that he'd rather it trailed along in Britain's wake.
But really, as I said earlier, I don't think he's fussed about Ireland at all (hence his ignorant comments), other than how the NI border issue affects the future UK-EU relationship.
As usual JRM is quite right. The position of NI cannot be allowed to dictate the entire Brexit process. We have to balance the interests of all parts of the UK - nobody gets a veto. It is Remainers who have tried to assert that NI trumps all, simply because they and their EU allies think it will derail Brexit.
In fact, NI is a solvable problem that will now not get solved because the Remainer obsession with NI will force us into No Deal. Not sure how you blame this on JRM. We should never even consider letting the threat of violence undermine the rights of the majority of the UK public that voted to leave the EU, which of course meant leaving the SM and CU.
So in fact, JRM was right to say that all options need to be considered for the NI border. The rantings of the Remainer core on this site really just betrays how scared they are of JRM. If they really thought he was an idiot of no consequence, they wouldn't need to spend so much effort on him would they.....
Simon Coveney the Irish Foreign Minister stated yesterday the chances of a No Deal are extremely small. He must know something PBers dont. How ?
Either that or he's loading up on brown trousers and bicycle clips.....
Yes, a good article, but I think perhaps misleading in one important respect. Because Ireland is not part of Schengen, the passport checks for an EU citizen flying to Dublin are identical in scope to those applying to an EU citizen flying to London. So JRM's premise is wrong from the start, even if in practice passport checks in both cases are pretty minimal. As the article says, the operation of the CTA relies on the UK cooperating with Ireland on enforcing more-or-less consistent border controls. Our membership or not of the EU is irrelevant.
Is it possible that Ireland remained out of Schengen due to the fact that we were staying out of Schengen and we had the CTA?
If so, why should they stay out of Schengen any longer after we leave? I hate to say that JRM might have a point, but on this, it may be possible - at least, at some point after we complete Brexit.
That would be up to them. If they really want to set up the hardest of hard borders by joining Schengen and leaving the CTA (because they can't be in both), there's nothing we can do to stop them. But I think JRM is more likely to become an enthusiastic Europhile than that happening!
This is how Agence France Press reported Macron's cabinet resignation:
President Emmanuel Macron suffered a major political blow Tuesday as his popular environment minister resigned live on radio -- without informing the French leader beforehand.
Nicolas Hulot, one of the most respected members of the cabinet among the French public, took even his interviewers by surprise on the France Inter radio station when announcing his move.
Doing it live on air? Why can't they do it properly, like skipping an important security meeting, ignoring a conference you're hosting, then hanging around for the press photographer to show up to snap you penning your resignation letter?
I wonder whether he'd give two hoots about the CTA were Britain and Ireland not in the EU. After all, it'd just be the bilateral agreement it always was then, with a small neighbour. My guess is that his problem is not the CTA with the 5m people of Ireland (and the implied economic alignment that comes with the CTA), but the fact that Dublin's hands are tied by the 450m-person strong EU27, which places a rather different dynamic on the relationship.
"Dublin's hands are tied" is just a condescending way of saying "we can't bully Dublin".
In a sense, yes it is. That is precisely JRM's objection. That said, I think 'bully' is the wrong word or phrase; 'ride roughshod over' would probably be more accurate. I don't think Mogg wants to actively bully Ireland; more that he'd rather it trailed along in Britain's wake.
But really, as I said earlier, I don't think he's fussed about Ireland at all (hence his ignorant comments), other than how the NI border issue affects the future UK-EU relationship.
As usual JRM is quite right. The position of NI cannot be allowed to dictate the entire Brexit process. We have to balance the interests of all parts of the UK - nobody gets a veto. It is Remainers who have tried to assert that NI trumps all, simply because they and their EU allies think it will derail Brexit.
In fact, NI is a solvable problem that will now not get solved because the Remainer obsession with NI will force us into No Deal. Not sure how you blame this on JRM. We should never even consider letting the threat of violence undermine the rights of the majority of the UK public that voted to leave the EU, which of course meant leaving the SM and CU.
So in fact, JRM was right to say that all options need to be considered for the NI border. The rantings of the Remainer core on this site really just betrays how scared they are of JRM. If they really thought he was an idiot of no consequence, they wouldn't need to spend so much effort on him would they.....
Simon Coveney the Irish Foreign Minister stated yesterday the chances of a No Deal are extremely small. He must know something PBers dont. How ?
If you paid more attention to the likes of JRM you’d know that Mrs May is ‘betraying’ Brexit. The fix is in.
Yes, a good article, but I think perhaps misleading in one important respect. Because Ireland is not part of Schengen, the passport checks for an EU citizen flying to Dublin are identical in scope to those applying to an EU citizen flying to London. So JRM's premise is wrong from the start, even if in practice passport checks in both cases are pretty minimal. As the article says, the operation of the CTA relies on the UK cooperating with Ireland on enforcing more-or-less consistent border controls. Our membership or not of the EU is irrelevant.
On the politics, as so often @david_herdson puts his finger on the key point. This is JRM working backwards from his conclusion to his argument.
Stepping back a little, and picking up on the discussions near the end of the previous thread, I'm not at all convinced that the outcome of all this is going to be JRM and his fellow ultras trooping through the same division lobby as Vince Cable, the SNP, and the Labour Party as a whole including Chuka Umanna and his fellow ultras in order to vote down any deal that the PM might come back with. For that to happen, those two diametrically-opposed groups would have to agree not only that they don't like The Deal, but also that defeating it would move the issue in their favoured direction, and therefore by definition in the opposite of the favoured direction of the other group. Is that really likely, and would they really make common cause?
Yes agree. But once in Ireland, an EU citizen has free rein to go anywhere they want including the UK without further checks.
This matters of course because unless I've missed it, we still don't seem to have implemented the registration process for EU citizens resident in the UK and unless and until you know who is already here, and when they arrived, any other EU citizens can present their EU passports and say "I've been here for 20 years".
As also mentioned, the interesting thing for me is that JRM it appears wouldn't have agreed the CTA in the first place, whatever its practical shortcomings or advantages.
The solution to that seems quite straight forward, you just start stamping EU passports on arrival.
How could that prove someone didn't enter by the backdoor without getting their passport stamped?
Then that should be a red flag. The exception being if they are Irish citizens, but they already have the right to settle in the UK.
Surely the existing National Insurance database has a record of every EU citizen to whom we have issued an NI number under ‘Freedom of Movement’? Registering those who wish to remain in the UK should be pretty straightforward.
It states that EU citizens will have until June 2021 to apply for settled status. This seems to be a pilot. I am completely bemused we did not do this a year ago. It is yet another example of the apparent paralysis that the government has suffered from over the last 18 months.
It is not immediately obvious if any EU citizen will have the right to come and settle here until June 2021 or whether those applying for that status will need to show that they have been here since some earlier date (31st March 2019 being the obvious one).
Edit, there is a bit later on in the piece saying that the scheme will open up fully on 30th March 19 and will apply to those who can show residence for 5 years, that would be back to 2014. Can't see the EU being thrilled with that.
Further edit. Presumably 5 years back from June 2021 will get us back to June 2016 or those resident at the date of the referendum.
I wonder whether he'd give two hoots about the CTA were Britain and Ireland not in the EU. After all, it'd just be the bilateral agreement it always was then, with a small neighbour. My guess is that his problem is not the CTA with the 5m people of Ireland (and the implied economic alignment that comes with the CTA), but the fact that Dublin's hands are tied by the 450m-person strong EU27, which places a rather different dynamic on the relationship.
"Dublin's hands are tied" is just a condescending way of saying "we can't bully Dublin".
In a sense, yes it is. That is precisely JRM's objection. That said, I think 'bully' is the wrong word or phrase; 'ride roughshod over' would probably be more accurate. I don't think Mogg wants to actively bully Ireland; more that he'd rather it trailed along in Britain's wake.
But really, as I said earlier, I don't think he's fussed about Ireland at all (hence his ignorant comments), other than how the NI border issue affects the future UK-EU relationship.
As usual JRM is quite right. The position of NI cannot be allowed to dictate the entire Brexit process. We have to balance the interests of all parts of the UK - nobody gets a veto. It is Remainers who have tried to assert that NI trumps all, simply because they and their EU allies think it will derail Brexit.
In fact, NI is a solvable problem that will now not get solved because the Remainer obsession with NI will force us into No Deal. Not sure how you blame this on JRM. We should never even consider letting the threat of violence undermine the rights of the majority of the UK public that voted to leave the EU, which of course meant leaving the SM and CU.
So in fact, JRM was right to say that all options need to be considered for the NI border. The rantings of the Remainer core on this site really just betrays how scared they are of JRM. If they really thought he was an idiot of no consequence, they wouldn't need to spend so much effort on him would they.....
Simon Coveney the Irish Foreign Minister stated yesterday the chances of a No Deal are extremely small. He must know something PBers dont. How ?
If you paid more attention to the likes of JRM you’d know that Mrs May is ‘betraying’ Brexit. The fix is in.
Errr right, am I supposed to be upset or something ? Ive always been for a soft Brexit and it looks like Im getting one.
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
It states that EU citizens will have until June 2021 to apply for settled status. This seems to be a pilot. I am completely bemused we did not do this a year ago. It is yet another example of the apparent paralysis that the government has suffered from over the last 18 months.
It is not immediately obvious if any EU citizen will have the right to come and settle here until June 2021 or whether those applying for that status will need to show that they have been here since some earlier date (31st March 2019 being the obvious one). Edit, there is a bit later on in the piece saying that the scheme will open up fully on 30th March 19 and will apply to those who can show residence for 5 years, that would be back to 2014. Can't see the EU being thrilled with that.
Further edit. Presumably 5 years back from June 2021 will get us back to June 2016 or those resident at the date of the referendum.
On further reflection this is quite a tough line from the government. It means that no one who came here after the referendum will have the right to remain as of right. Presumably they will still have the right to remain if they are "useful". This is considerably less than the EU wanted but it seems that the government is going to act unilaterally after all. This is, in many respects, a better indication of what no deal is going to look like than those advice notes that Raab was sweating over.
Edit, there is a bit later on in the piece saying that the scheme will open up fully on 30th March 19 and will apply to those who can show residence for 5 years, that would be back to 2014. Can't see the EU being thrilled with that.
Further edit. Presumably 5 years back from June 2021 will get us back to June 2016 or those resident at the date of the referendum.
This will be just like Windrush again. There will be people entitled to stay but with a gap in their documentary evidence and any excuse will be used by the Home Office to refuse them. I thought it was the nasty continentals that had an obsession with "papers" and people being required to prove their rights?
All the fake words of contrition over Windrush and they are creating the same problem.
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
This lecturer has a wonderful name. "Mercedes Bunz, a senior lecturer in digital technology at King's College London, told BBC News it was highly unlikely that Google was deliberately ranking news according to political bias." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45331210
Edit, there is a bit later on in the piece saying that the scheme will open up fully on 30th March 19 and will apply to those who can show residence for 5 years, that would be back to 2014. Can't see the EU being thrilled with that.
Further edit. Presumably 5 years back from June 2021 will get us back to June 2016 or those resident at the date of the referendum.
This will be just like Windrush again. There will be people entitled to stay but with a gap in their documentary evidence and any excuse will be used by the Home Office to refuse them. I thought it was the nasty continentals that had an obsession with "papers" and people being required to prove their rights?
All the fake words of contrition over Windrush and they are creating the same problem.
Not sure you can assume that. There will be a "presumption" that the application will be granted, apparently. But the onus will be on the applicant who will presumably have to produce some evidence of their residence.
It states that EU citizens will have until June 2021 to apply for settled status. This seems to be a pilot. I am completely bemused we did not do this a year ago. It is yet another example of the apparent paralysis that the government has suffered from over the last 18 months.
It is not immediately obvious if any EU citizen will have the right to come and settle here until June 2021 or whether those applying for that status will need to show that they have been here since some earlier date (31st March 2019 being the obvious one).
Edit, there is a bit later on in the piece saying that the scheme will open up fully on 30th March 19 and will apply to those who can show residence for 5 years, that would be back to 2014. Can't see the EU being thrilled with that.
Further edit. Presumably 5 years back from June 2021 will get us back to June 2016 or those resident at the date of the referendum.
But does this:
"Those who are resident in the UK by 31 December 2020 but who have not lived in the UK for five years will get pre-settled status which allows them to live and work in the UK until they reach the five year mark and can claim settled status."
not mean that if they are here before 31 Dec 2020 they will have the right to stay here for five years and then get settled status? What determines "pre-settled status"?
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
Oh Lord. Corbyn thinks the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true doesn’t he?
As Rabbi Sachs points out in the interview referred to down thread he is a racist anti-Semite of a kind that we have not seen in our major parties since at least Powell (and arguably Moseley). People are either alright with that or they are not. It seems a rather depressing number of people are.
This lecturer has a wonderful name. "Mercedes Bunz, a senior lecturer in digital technology at King's College London, told BBC News it was highly unlikely that Google was deliberately ranking news according to political bias." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45331210
You have to be very careful getting the vowels correct in the name of a car. Especially if you drive a Volvo.
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
(last comment there is sarcasm)
‘[British MPs] all turned up [to the debating chamber] with a pre-prepared script. I’m sure our friend Ron Prosor (the Israeli ambassador) wrote it.
‘Because they all came up with the same key words. It was rather like reading a European document looking for buzz-words.
Interesting piece, but contains some inaccuracies. As a veteran of frequent travelling to and from Irish Republic for over 50 years, would just point out if you are travelling by sea in a car, you have to provide names of passengers when you book but you are NOT ever asked for ID of any kind either on departure or arrival. Your car may be given a "security check" before boarding but this is solely to check what you are carrying in it, they have no interest in who you are.
With air travel, on arrival at Gatwick, Luton or Stansted (can't speak for Heathrow) you are bussed direct from plane to UK side of passport control and then treated exactly the same as if you had arrived from Manchester, Jersey etc. so no ID check of any kind upon arrival.
With travel documents, Ryanair insist on a passport, most others, including Aer Lingus will accept any photo ID including a bus pass or a work ID. How anyone works out if you are a UK or Irish citizen I have no idea!
It states that EU citizens will have until June 2021 to apply for settled status. This seems to be a pilot. I am completely bemused we did not do this a year ago. It is yet another example of the apparent paralysis that the government has suffered from over the last 18 months.
It is not immediately obvious if any EU citizen will have the right to come and settle here until June 2021 or whether those applying for that status will need to show that they have been here since some earlier date (31st March 2019 being the obvious one).
Edit, there is a bit later on in the piece saying that the scheme will open up fully on 30th March 19 and will apply to those who can show residence for 5 years, that would be back to 2014. Can't see the EU being thrilled with that.
Further edit. Presumably 5 years back from June 2021 will get us back to June 2016 or those resident at the date of the referendum.
But does this:
"Those who are resident in the UK by 31 December 2020 but who have not lived in the UK for five years will get pre-settled status which allows them to live and work in the UK until they reach the five year mark and can claim settled status."
not mean that if they are here before 31 Dec 2020 they will have the right to stay here for five years and then get settled status? What determines "pre-settled status"?
Goodness knows. I think that they are making this up as they go along in the expectation that the details will be hammered out in a deal that hasn't happened yet. This looks like an attempt to rattle the cage in an effort to encourage such a deal to me.
There is absolutely no way that Corbyn hasn't violated the internal anti-Semitism definition multiple times, and seriously so. He and his henchmen clearly realise this, but he's gradually being trapped into accepting it. The formal complaints will then follow.
Interesting piece, but contains some inaccuracies. As a veteran of frequent travelling to and from Irish Republic for over 50 years, would just point out if you are travelling by sea in a car, you have to provide names of passengers when you book but you are NOT ever asked for ID of any kind either on departure or arrival. Your car may be given a "security check" before boarding but this is solely to check what you are carrying in it, they have no interest in who you are.
With air travel, on arrival at Gatwick, Luton or Stansted (can't speak for Heathrow) you are bussed direct from plane to UK side of passport control and then treated exactly the same as if you had arrived from Manchester, Jersey etc. so no ID check of any kind upon arrival.
With travel documents, Ryanair insist on a passport, most others, including Aer Lingus will accept any photo ID including a bus pass or a work ID. How anyone works out if you are a UK or Irish citizen I have no idea!
Thanks! Amendments noted. I added the bit about air and sea checks (inaccurately it turns out as you have informed me) because I knew that that blessed Irish Times letter would be rolled out about the queues at immigration when anyone said there were no checks!
There is absolutely no way that Corbyn hasn't violated the internal anti-Semitism definition multiple times, and seriously so. He and his henchmen clearly realise this, but he's gradually being trapped into accepting it. The formal complaints will then follow.
Isn't it rumoured that the Anti-Semitism code will only apply to future breaches, so Jez will be in the clear.
This lecturer has a wonderful name. "Mercedes Bunz, a senior lecturer in digital technology at King's College London, told BBC News it was highly unlikely that Google was deliberately ranking news according to political bias." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45331210
That is rather good. Does she have an evil uncle, mean Heinz Bunz ... ?
Jeremy Corbyn’s remarks about British Zionists represent “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”, the former chief rabbi has said.
Jonathan Sacks said Mr Corbyn had depicted a group of British citizens as “essentially alien” when he said in 2013 that British Zionists "don't understand English irony".
Lord Sacks, who served as chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, said Mr Corbyn was an “anti-Semite” in comments which are likely to pile even greater pressure on the Labour leader.
This lecturer has a wonderful name. "Mercedes Bunz, a senior lecturer in digital technology at King's College London, told BBC News it was highly unlikely that Google was deliberately ranking news according to political bias." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45331210
That is rather good. Does she have an evil uncle, mean Heinz Bunz ... ?
There is absolutely no way that Corbyn hasn't violated the internal anti-Semitism definition multiple times, and seriously so. He and his henchmen clearly realise this, but he's gradually being trapped into accepting it. The formal complaints will then follow.
Isn't it rumoured that the Anti-Semitism code will only apply to future breaches, so Jez will be in the clear.
Also given they now only have 1 person working through a mass of complaints they won't get to any new ones for years.
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
Oh Lord. Corbyn thinks the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true doesn’t he?
As Rabbi Sachs points out in the interview referred to down thread he is a racist anti-Semite of a kind that we have not seen in our major parties since at least Powell (and arguably Moseley). People are either alright with that or they are not. It seems a rather depressing number of people are.
"It seems a rather depressing number of people are."
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
Didn't you hear, he claimed people on one side of the debate come with similar points for their side of the argument. He even mentioned the Israeli ambassador! He is well known for being an opponent of the occupation of Palestine. I mean really the holocaust just doesn't compare to that. Even saying they are similar just insults the memory of the suffering that has been caused these last few years.
Jeremy Corbyn’s remarks about British Zionists represent “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”, the former chief rabbi has said.
Jonathan Sacks said Mr Corbyn had depicted a group of British citizens as “essentially alien” when he said in 2013 that British Zionists "don't understand English irony".
Lord Sacks, who served as chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, said Mr Corbyn was an “anti-Semite” in comments which are likely to pile even greater pressure on the Labour leader.
There are fewer than 300,000 Jews in the UK. I can't believe that more than 250 of them still vote Labour so I really don't see what harm this will all do him.
Supposedly upright, left-leaning, morally upstanding Labour voters such as @RochdalePioneers and @TheJezziah think it's all a conspiracy by the right wing press and if they don't care about the transparent anti-semitism as they knock on their doors locally promising better rural bus links, then I can't imagine anyone else will.
I think for me the interesting thing is that prior to these revelations I would not have said that Jezza was an anti-semite, only that he has presided over a party wherein anti-semites feel empowered.
I would now say that he is an anti-semite. Not that he or his followers care what anyone else thinks.
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
Oh Lord. Corbyn thinks the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true doesn’t he?
As Rabbi Sacks points out in the interview referred to down thread he is a racist anti-Semite of a kind that we have not seen in our major parties since at least Powell (and arguably Moseley). People are either alright with that or they are not. It seems a rather depressing number of people are.
"It seems a rather depressing number of people are."
By which you mean Labour members and MPs.
Amongst others, yes. And they are more important than most.
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
(last comment there is sarcasm)
‘[British MPs] all turned up [to the debating chamber] with a pre-prepared script. I’m sure our friend Ron Prosor (the Israeli ambassador) wrote it.
‘Because they all came up with the same key words. It was rather like reading a European document looking for buzz-words.
It is the sort of thing alex jones would say.
From the very short clips in meme videos I have seen of Alex Jones it seems a bit too boring and normal to claim the other side had similar talking points like they had prepared, too much like a normal politician. Taking his top off and making angry grunting noises is more along the lines of what I have seen...
Although I guess only his crazier bits would make it into meme videos...
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
Didn't you hear, he claimed people on one side of the debate come with similar points for their side of the argument. He even mentioned the Israeli ambassador! He is well known for being an opponent of the occupation of Palestine. I mean really the holocaust just doesn't compare to that. Even saying they are similar just insults the memory of the suffering that has been caused these last few years.
He also accused the Jews of not being properly English. How does that sit with you, sunshine?
Jeremy Corbyn’s remarks about British Zionists represent “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”, the former chief rabbi has said.
Jonathan Sacks said Mr Corbyn had depicted a group of British citizens as “essentially alien” when he said in 2013 that British Zionists "don't understand English irony".
Lord Sacks, who served as chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, said Mr Corbyn was an “anti-Semite” in comments which are likely to pile even greater pressure on the Labour leader.
There are fewer than 300,000 Jews in the UK. I can't believe that more than 250 of them still vote Labour so I really don't see what harm this will all do him.
Supposedly upright, left-leaning, morally upstanding Labour voters such as @RochdalePioneers and @TheJezziah think it's all a conspiracy by the right wing press and if they don't care about the transparent anti-semitism as they knock on their doors locally promising better rural bus links, then I can't imagine anyone else will.
I think for me the interesting thing is that prior to these revelations I would not have said that Jezza was an anti-semite, only that he has presided over a party wherein anti-semites feel empowered.
I would now say that he is an anti-semite. Not that he or his followers care what anyone else thinks.
There will be a lot less than 300k if jezza get elected.
Jeremy Corbyn’s remarks about British Zionists represent “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”, the former chief rabbi has said.
Jonathan Sacks said Mr Corbyn had depicted a group of British citizens as “essentially alien” when he said in 2013 that British Zionists "don't understand English irony".
Lord Sacks, who served as chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, said Mr Corbyn was an “anti-Semite” in comments which are likely to pile even greater pressure on the Labour leader.
There are fewer than 300,000 Jews in the UK. I can't believe that more than 250 of them still vote Labour so I really don't see what harm this will all do him.
Supposedly upright, left-leaning, morally upstanding Labour voters such as @RochdalePioneers and @TheJezziah think it's all a conspiracy by the right wing press and if they don't care about the transparent anti-semitism as they knock on their doors locally promising better rural bus links, then I can't imagine anyone else will.
I think for me the interesting thing is that prior to these revelations I would not have said that Jezza was an anti-semite, only that he has presided over a party wherein anti-semites feel empowered.
I would now say that he is an anti-semite. Not that he or his followers care what anyone else thinks.
There will be a lot less than 300k if jezza get elected.
He's going to send them back home to, er, Israel. Which of course is not their homeland but was stolen from the Palestinians...etc, etc...
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
Didn't you hear, he claimed people on one side of the debate come with similar points for their side of the argument. He even mentioned the Israeli ambassador! He is well known for being an opponent of the occupation of Palestine. I mean really the holocaust just doesn't compare to that. Even saying they are similar just insults the memory of the suffering that has been caused these last few years.
He also accused the Jews of not being properly English. How does that sit with you, sunshine?
No he didn't, sweetheart. He referred to a particular group of English people as being less able to understand 'English irony' than the Palestinian guy he was referring too.
Reading into this that he was saying all Jewish people are not properly English is a little bit of a stretch.
This lecturer has a wonderful name. "Mercedes Bunz, a senior lecturer in digital technology at King's College London, told BBC News it was highly unlikely that Google was deliberately ranking news according to political bias." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45331210
This lecturer has a wonderful name. "Mercedes Bunz, a senior lecturer in digital technology at King's College London, told BBC News it was highly unlikely that Google was deliberately ranking news according to political bias." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45331210
You have to be very careful getting the vowels correct in the name of a car. Especially if you drive a Volvo.
I was flicking through books in Waterstones in Cork last week and came across a book called Hitlers Irishmen about two paddies who ended up serving in the SS
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
Didn't you hear, he claimed people on one side of the debate come with similar points for their side of the argument. He even mentioned the Israeli ambassador! He is well known for being an opponent of the occupation of Palestine. I mean really the holocaust just doesn't compare to that. Even saying they are similar just insults the memory of the suffering that has been caused these last few years.
He also accused the Jews of not being properly English. How does that sit with you, sunshine?
No he didn't, sweetheart. He referred to a particular group of English people as being less able to understand 'English irony' than the Palestinian guy he was referring too.
Reading into this that he was saying all Jewish people are not properly English is a little bit of a stretch.
No that's really not what he did, sweetness and light as it sounds coming from your keyboard. He was, as he has done consistently, creating a sense of "The Other", in this case the Jews. All fairly routine anti-semitic stuff and not really a stretch to understand it.
Jeremy Corbyn’s remarks about British Zionists represent “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”, the former chief rabbi has said.
Jonathan Sacks said Mr Corbyn had depicted a group of British citizens as “essentially alien” when he said in 2013 that British Zionists "don't understand English irony".
Lord Sacks, who served as chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, said Mr Corbyn was an “anti-Semite” in comments which are likely to pile even greater pressure on the Labour leader.
There are fewer than 300,000 Jews in the UK. I can't believe that more than 250 of them still vote Labour so I really don't see what harm this will all do him.
Well there are more than 250 voting Labour (or there have been in previous votes and without some incredible turn of events will be in future votes)
Although in fairness I imagine there are plenty of things that are true that you refuse to believe so no harm there.
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
Didn't you hear, he claimed people on one side of the debate come with similar points for their side of the argument. He even mentioned the Israeli ambassador! He is well known for being an opponent of the occupation of Palestine. I mean really the holocaust just doesn't compare to that. Even saying they are similar just insults the memory of the suffering that has been caused these last few years.
He also accused the Jews of not being properly English. How does that sit with you, sunshine?
No he didn't, sweetheart. He referred to a particular group of English people as being less able to understand 'English irony' than the Palestinian guy he was referring too.
Reading into this that he was saying all Jewish people are not properly English is a little bit of a stretch.
No that's really not what he did, sweetness and light as it sounds coming from your keyboard. He was, as he has done consistently, creating a sense of "The Other", in this case the Jews. All fairly routine anti-semitic stuff and not really a stretch to understand it.
Ahh yes he was secretly pushing it, it is all code words and winks you see. The youtube conspiracy guys were right all along they just had the wrong targets it was Corbyn with his master plan to other the Jewish people by not actually mentioning Jewish people but criticism of Israel in packed conference rooms and meetings that went well into the tens of people. Mastermind anti semite of Hitlerian persuasion that he is...
The reason this doesn't work for the general public is not because people are fans of or even don't care about anti semitism, although the latter could be true anyway.
The reason this attack line doesn't work for the general public is you sound as crazy as the conspiracy theorists on youtube. They do get a following but most people just think the propaganda is all too much of a stretch.
Jeremy Corbyn’s remarks about British Zionists represent “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”, the former chief rabbi has said.
Jonathan Sacks said Mr Corbyn had depicted a group of British citizens as “essentially alien” when he said in 2013 that British Zionists "don't understand English irony".
Lord Sacks, who served as chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, said Mr Corbyn was an “anti-Semite” in comments which are likely to pile even greater pressure on the Labour leader.
There are fewer than 300,000 Jews in the UK. I can't believe that more than 250 of them still vote Labour so I really don't see what harm this will all do him.
Well there are more than 250 voting Labour (or there have been in previous votes and without some incredible turn of events will be in future votes)
Although in fairness I imagine there are plenty of things that are true that you refuse to believe so no harm there.
I know; as @FrancisUrquhart has noted, it is a work in progress. You should be rid of them before too long I'm sure.
There is absolutely no way that Corbyn hasn't violated the internal anti-Semitism definition multiple times, and seriously so. He and his henchmen clearly realise this, but he's gradually being trapped into accepting it. The formal complaints will then follow.
Isn't it rumoured that the Anti-Semitism code will only apply to future breaches, so Jez will be in the clear.
Which is the way to introduce any rule. I am not in any way forgiving or excusing Corbyn's past comments, but imposing any regulation retroactively is usually idiotic, whatever the regulation.
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
Didn't you hear,t has been caused these last few years.
He also accused the Jews of not being properly English. How does that sit with you, sunshine?
No he didn't, sweetheart. He referred to a particular group of English people as being less able to understand 'English irony' than the Palestinian guy he was referring too.
Reading into this that he was saying all Jewish people are not properly English is a little bit of a stretch.
No that's really not what he did, sweetness and light as it sounds coming from your keyboard. He was, as he has done consistently, creating a sense of "The Other", in this case the Jews. All fairly routine anti-semitic stuff and not really a stretch to understand it.
Ahh yes he was secretly pushing it, it is all code words and winks you see. The youtube conspiracy guys were right all along they just had the wrong targets it was Corbyn with his master plan to other the Jewish people by not actually mentioning Jewish people but criticism of Israel in packed conference rooms and meetings that went well into the tens of people. Mastermind anti semite of Hitlerian persuasion that he is...
The reason this doesn't work for the general public is not because people are fans of or even don't care about anti semitism, although the latter could be true anyway.
The reason this attack line doesn't work for the general public is you sound as crazy as the conspiracy theorists on youtube. They do get a following but most people just think the propaganda is all too much of a stretch.
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
Didn't you hear,t has been caused these last few years.
He also accused the Jews of not being properly English. How does that sit with you, sunshine?
No he didn't, sweetheart. He referred to a particular group of English people as being less able to understand 'English irony' than the Palestinian guy he was referring too.
Reading into this that he was saying all Jewish people are not properly English is a little bit of a stretch.
No that's really not what he did, sweetness and light as it sounds coming from your keyboard. He was, as he has done consistently, creating a sense of "The Other", in this case the Jews. All fairly routine anti-semitic stuff and not really a stretch to understand it.
Ahh yes he was secretly pushing it, it is all code words and winks you see. The youtube conspiracy guys were right all along they just had the wrong targets it was Corbyn with his master plan to other the Jewish people by not actually mentioning Jewish people but criticism of Israel in packed conference rooms and meetings that went well into the tens of people. Mastermind anti semite of Hitlerian persuasion that he is...
The reason this doesn't work for the general public is not because people are fans of or even don't care about anti semitism, although the latter could be true anyway.
The reason this attack line doesn't work for the general public is you sound as crazy as the conspiracy theorists on youtube. They do get a following but most people just think the propaganda is all too much of a stretch.
That's an awful lot of protesting going on there.
There is usually an awful lot of that going on here with people complaining that right wing propaganda about Corbyn being a racist isn't cutting through enough.
There is usually an awful lot of that going on here with people whining that right wing propaganda about Corbyn being a racist isn't cutting through enough.
Just out of interest does the former Chief Rabbi count in your book as one of the "conspiracy theorists on youtube"?
There is absolutely no way that Corbyn hasn't violated the internal anti-Semitism definition multiple times, and seriously so. He and his henchmen clearly realise this, but he's gradually being trapped into accepting it. The formal complaints will then follow.
Isn't it rumoured that the Anti-Semitism code will only apply to future breaches, so Jez will be in the clear.
Which is the way to introduce any rule. I am not in any way forgiving or excusing Corbyn's past comments, but imposing any regulation retroactively is usually idiotic, whatever the regulation.
When was it OK to be anti-semitic under Labour rules?
Just spent a very, very informative hour watching this.
ExiledinScotland: many thanks for posting & williamglenn appreciate the recommendation. Sad about Arlene Foster; just about the only interviewee who wasn’t positive.
There is usually an awful lot of that going on here with people whining that right wing propaganda about Corbyn being a racist isn't cutting through enough.
Just out of interest does the former Chief Rabbi count in your book as one of the "conspiracy theorists on youtube"?
I'm not sure you were reading my posts if you think I was calling anyone a conspiracy theorist on youtube, well outside of maybe the part where I said you sound as crazy as them but I assume you aren't the former chief rabbi. I also said near the start that the youtube conspiracy guys had the wrong target, which isn't labelling anyone but youtube conspiracy guys as youtube conspiracy guys. Sort of like saying white people are white people.
If the Chief Rabbi goes in for a bit of this is a codeword here for this and if you interpret this a certain way that goes against the context then you can clearly see this politician secretly means this thing they have never stated then I would accuse him of sounding a bit like youtube conspiracy theory guys because that is what youtube conspiracy guys sound like.
I recently read the family history, "The Hare With Amber Eyes," in which a Jewish family is present in Paris during the Dreyfus affair and in Vienna up until the Anschluss and it brought home to me how vulnerable minorities are, and how reliant they are upon the protection of people of decency.
The real problem is that these solutions are not really compatible with what our government has already signed up for. That was a mistake.
That is the nub - we can do all sorts of things, as you say registration being however a pre-requisite for most of them. We don't seem to have started this. Plus the scope for c**k-up has got to be monumental in as you say such a frighteningly large job.
I can't see FOM stopping before any transition period now. If we wanted it to work from March next year we would have had to start work a year ago at least.
It does not need to stop before any transition period, just be replaced by a job offer or study place requirement on arrival as proposed by Chequers
I recently read the family history, "The Hare With Amber Eyes," in which a Jewish family is present in Paris during the Dreyfus affair and in Vienna up until the Anschluss and it brought home to me how vulnerable minorities are, and how reliant they are upon the protection of people of decency.
I don't have any time left for Corbyn.
It is occasionally a mystery to some but there is a reason minorities mostly vote Labour.
There is usually an awful lot of that going on here with people whining that right wing propaganda about Corbyn being a racist isn't cutting through enough.
Just out of interest does the former Chief Rabbi count in your book as one of the "conspiracy theorists on youtube"?
I'm not sure you were reading my posts if you think I was calling anyone a conspiracy theorist on youtube, well outside of maybe the part where I said you sound as crazy as them but I assume you aren't the former chief rabbi. I also said near the start that the youtube conspiracy guys had the wrong target, which isn't labelling anyone but youtube conspiracy guys as youtube conspiracy guys. Sort of like saying white people are white people.
If the Chief Rabbi goes in for a bit of this is a codeword here for this and if you interpret this a certain way that goes against the context then you can clearly see this politician secretly means this thing they have never stated then I would accuse him of sounding a bit like youtube conspiracy theory guys because that is what youtube conspiracy guys sound like.
That's weak from you.
First off I have never actually listened to a youtube conspiracy theorist (although I did see but not pay for the KSI vs Logan Paul fight if that counts). Have you?
Second of all, I don't think it's reasonable for you to compare the former Chief Rabbi (not me, btw), to one of them. I think he brings a more thoughtful perspective on it. Perhaps informed by his studies not to say his doctorate in philosophy ("Collective Responsibility" so Google tells me, whatever that is).
I recently read the family history, "The Hare With Amber Eyes," in which a Jewish family is present in Paris during the Dreyfus affair and in Vienna up until the Anschluss and it brought home to me how vulnerable minorities are, and how reliant they are upon the protection of people of decency.
I don't have any time left for Corbyn.
It is occasionally a mystery to some but there is a reason minorities mostly vote Labour.
Especially when Labour is not lead by someone who dislikes them.
The real problem is that these solutions are not really compatible with what our government has already signed up for. That was a mistake.
That is the nub - we can do all sorts of things, as you say registration being however a pre-requisite for most of them. We don't seem to have started this. Plus the scope for c**k-up has got to be monumental in as you say such a frighteningly large job.
I can't see FOM stopping before any transition period now. If we wanted it to work from March next year we would have had to start work a year ago at least.
Didn't we agree last December that FOM would continue during any transition period anyway? The whole point of the transition is that all rules (including FOM and payment) continue as is even though we've left.
Talking of NATO Russia is to hold its biggest military exercises in central and eastern Russia since 1981 next month with Chinese and Mongolian forces also involved
The real problem is that these solutions are not really compatible with what our government has already signed up for. That was a mistake.
That is the nub - we can do all sorts of things, as you say registration being however a pre-requisite for most of them. We don't seem to have started this. Plus the scope for c**k-up has got to be monumental in as you say such a frighteningly large job.
I can't see FOM stopping before any transition period now. If we wanted it to work from March next year we would have had to start work a year ago at least.
Didn't we agree last December that FOM would continue during any transition period anyway? The whole point of the transition is that all rules (including FOM and payment) continue as is even though we've left.
Well yes, but we only have a transition period if we have a deal. No deal, no transition, no freedom of movement.
The real problem is that these solutions are not really compatible with what our government has already signed up for. That was a mistake.
That is the nub - we can do all sorts of things, as you say registration being however a pre-requisite for most of them. We don't seem to have started this. Plus the scope for c**k-up has got to be monumental in as you say such a frighteningly large job.
I can't see FOM stopping before any transition period now. If we wanted it to work from March next year we would have had to start work a year ago at least.
Didn't we agree last December that FOM would continue during any transition period anyway? The whole point of the transition is that all rules (including FOM and payment) continue as is even though we've left.
It may be we go to a transition deal next March with a FTA based on Chequers terms still to be worked on during the transition period
Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’.
So to move onto what actually happened, there was a debate and Corbyn accused people on one side of the debate of having similar lines or similar points as the basis for their side of the argument.
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
(last comment there is sarcasm)
The claim is slightly different. He said in his speech to the Palestinian conference that MPs had used a number of buzz phrases which had been provided by the Israeli Embassy. Apparently - and obviously I have not checked this - the record of the Hansard debate does not show any MP using the phrases Corbyn said they did. So why did he? Was he making an assumption and what does that say about his views?
If the MPs did not use the phrases attributed to them, the question of where they came from does not arise. If they did, then it might but you would hope that Corbyn would have some evidence for his allegations. If they did use those phrases, then did Corbyn have evidence for his allegations? And if he didn’t, why make them?
If what he said was untrue then it is legitimate to criticise him for making untrue allegations and for any inbuilt prejudices such untrue allegations might show. (E.g. an assumption without evidence that Jewish MPs merely repeat verbatim what the Israeli Embassy has given them.)
It also raises the issue as to whether any of the things he says in his speeches, whether in Parliament or outside, have been fed to him by third party sources and, if so, whether he discloses this in Parliament.
There is nothing wrong with being briefed but MPs should explain the sources of their information and not simply act as mouthpieces for others. That applies to Corbyn as much as to anyone else.
An enterprising journalist might want to check some of his Parliamentary speeches and see whether he is in the habit of merely repeating pre-written lines fed to him by others.
There is usually an awful lot of that going on here with people whining that right wing propaganda about Corbyn being a racist isn't cutting through enough.
Just out of interest does the former Chief Rabbi count in your book as one of the "conspiracy theorists on youtube"?
I'm not sure you were reading my posts if you think I was calling anyone a conspiracy theorist on youtube, well outside of maybe the part where I said you sound as crazy as them but I assume you aren't the former chief rabbi. I also said near the start that the youtube conspiracy guys had the wrong target, which isn't labelling anyone but youtube conspiracy guys as youtube conspiracy guys. Sort of like saying white people are white people.
If the Chief Rabbi goes in for a bit of this is a codeword here for this and if you interpret this a certain way that goes against the context then you can clearly see this politician secretly means this thing they have never stated then I would accuse him of sounding a bit like youtube conspiracy theory guys because that is what youtube conspiracy guys sound like.
That's weak from you.
First off I have never actually listened to a youtube conspiracy theorist (although I did see but not pay for the KSI vs Logan Paul fight if that counts). Have you?
Second of all, I don't think it's reasonable for you to compare the former Chief Rabbi (not me, btw), to one of them. I think he brings a more thoughtful perspective on it. Perhaps informed by his studies not to say his doctorate in philosophy ("Collective Responsibility" so Google tells me, whatever that is).
I said you sound as crazy as them not that you watched them regularly. I saw a bunch of them years back, had one friend who was into them so a few of us watched some. The ones with good production values and well done could be a bit like a movie but with real people still a fictional or very loosely related to reality storyline though.
I didn't compare the Chief Rabbi to a youtube conspiracy theorist, merely gave a list of things that they do that if copied by him would mean he sounds like them. If for example he has just seen some of the misleading coverage in the press and come to the conclusion that Corbyn must be racist then that is no different to say a random person who only pays a little bit of attention to the news, maybe reads a right wing newspaper and has come to that conclusion. Being misinformed is actively different to trying to misinform others.
The real problem is that these solutions are not really compatible with what our government has already signed up for. That was a mistake.
That is the nub - we can do all sorts of things, as you say registration being however a pre-requisite for most of them. We don't seem to have started this. Plus the scope for c**k-up has got to be monumental in as you say such a frighteningly large job.
I can't see FOM stopping before any transition period now. If we wanted it to work from March next year we would have had to start work a year ago at least.
Didn't we agree last December that FOM would continue during any transition period anyway? The whole point of the transition is that all rules (including FOM and payment) continue as is even though we've left.
Well yes, but we only have a transition period if we have a deal. No deal, no transition, no freedom of movement.
Well agreed yes but your comment was "FOM stopping before any transition period" ... we've already agreed that won't happen. If there's no transition then there's an almighty long list of things we need to resolve but that simply won't happen. May will fold like a pack of cards and sign whatever Barnier gives her. And enough in Parliament will fold too.
Even with Trump's very high shame threshold, I cannot see his failure to receive an invitation to the late Sen John McCain's memorial as anything other than deeply embarrassing, possibly damagingly so. That two of McCain's most high profile opponents – Bush Jr and Obama – have both been asked to deliver eulogies doubles down the pain on Trumpton. His absence will be conspicuous.
I recently read the family history, "The Hare With Amber Eyes," in which a Jewish family is present in Paris during the Dreyfus affair and in Vienna up until the Anschluss and it brought home to me how vulnerable minorities are, and how reliant they are upon the protection of people of decency.
I don't have any time left for Corbyn.
I recall reading that some time ago. The family always seemed to be looking over their shoulders to see where the next threat was coming from, and that tallies with other books I’ve read which feature Jews.
One can understand therefore the communities sensitivity when a threat appears, whether it’s real or not.
The group ‘Bristol for Europe' has found it’s way onto my Facebook page, and has, apparently, come into the possession of a letter to Mr Rees-Mogg, as follows.
‘Dear Mr Rees Mogg, we hope this letter finds you well. We found your recent thoughts on indiscriminate searching of people as they cross the Irish border most intriguing. We would love to hear more of these truly amazing ideas in person and at length. Please accept our invite to speak directly to our residents any time in the very near future. You wouldn’t believe how eager we all are to meet you face to face. Sincerely, the Falls Road Residents Association’
If the MPs did not use the phrases attributed to them, the question of where they came from does not arise. If they did, then it might but you would hope that Corbyn would have some evidence for his allegations. If they did use those phrases, then did Corbyn have evidence for his allegations? And if he didn’t, why make them?
If what he said was untrue then it is legitimate to criticise him for making untrue allegations and for any inbuilt prejudices such untrue allegations might show. (E.g. an assumption without evidence that Jewish MPs merely repeat verbatim what the Israeli Embassy has given them.)
It also raises the issue as to whether any of the things he says in his speeches, whether in Parliament or outside, have been fed to him by third party sources and, if so, whether he discloses this in Parliament.
There is nothing wrong with being briefed but MPs should explain the sources of their information and not simply act as mouthpieces for others. That applies to Corbyn as much as to anyone else.
An enterprising journalist might want to check some of his Parliamentary speeches and see whether he is in the habit of merely repeating pre-written lines fed to him by others.
Yeah I have heard that as well, haven't checked it out myself but it seems plausible that they didn't use exact phrases. I took it as more a general they used the same arguments/points rather than being specific, although that is a generous interpretation. This is the bit I am least sure about.
AFAIK there was no singling out of Jewish MPs, happy to be corrected here (maybe I've missed something) but my impression was he was talking about (to use simply labelling) the pro Israeli side in a particular debate, there are far more MPs with (what could be labelled) a pro Israeli POV than there are Jewish MPs. Edit: Wouldn't there have been some Jewish MPs not on the other side of the debate anyway? I suppose it depends when the debate was but there have been Jewish MPs who have been strong critics of Israel.
Claiming that pro Israeli MPs would push pro Israeli talking points and that the Israeli embassy would also assist in pushing pro Israeli talking points isn't controversial IMO. I assume similar would happen with a fair few countries were you to swap Israel for another country in that sentence.
Corbyn and those around him aren't pro Russia, certainly not in the way some MPs are pro Israel (and not in the way the right like to talk about) but people are happy to make various accusations about Corbyn, those around him and various Russian people in power. Would this suddenly be racist if the Russians were not (mostly) White people or would the reasons people push this line still exist independently of their suddenly different ethnicity?
The real problem is that these solutions are not really compatible with what our government has already signed up for. That was a mistake.
That is the nub - we can do all sorts of things, as you say registration being however a pre-requisite for most of them. We don't seem to have started this. Plus the scope for c**k-up has got to be monumental in as you say such a frighteningly large job.
I can't see FOM stopping before any transition period now. If we wanted it to work from March next year we would have had to start work a year ago at least.
Didn't we agree last December that FOM would continue during any transition period anyway? The whole point of the transition is that all rules (including FOM and payment) continue as is even though we've left.
Well yes, but we only have a transition period if we have a deal. No deal, no transition, no freedom of movement.
Well agreed yes but your comment was "FOM stopping before any transition period" ... we've already agreed that won't happen. If there's no transition then there's an almighty long list of things we need to resolve but that simply won't happen. May will fold like a pack of cards and sign whatever Barnier gives her. And enough in Parliament will fold too.
This could be clearer but the position as I understand it from Chequers is that any FOM during the transition period will be restricted. The suggestion is that you will need proof of a job or an education place before you are allowed to come rather than having a period to look for one when you get here. What I think we can infer from the announcement today is that those who come during that period may not qualify for the 5 year right of residency either but it is not entirely clear because there is also reference to "working up" to the 5 years and it may be that this could happen after any transition period is finished.
I recently read the family history, "The Hare With Amber Eyes," in which a Jewish family is present in Paris during the Dreyfus affair and in Vienna up until the Anschluss and it brought home to me how vulnerable minorities are, and how reliant they are upon the protection of people of decency.
I don't have any time left for Corbyn.
I recall reading that some time ago. The family always seemed to be looking over their shoulders to see where the next threat was coming from, and that tallies with other books I’ve read which feature Jews.
One can understand therefore the communities sensitivity when a threat appears, whether it’s real or not.
The Dreyfus affair highlighted all these issues. Even in my own family, the reason my mother’s family ended up in Italy was because her great-grandfather, a French Jew, felt that he could progress no further in France and left for Italy. And barely 40 years later, despite being Catholics by then, the family could not be certain that their well-known Jewish ancestry would not make them vulnerable. One reason why my mother and her siblings spent most of the war years hidden in Rome’s convents.
@TheJezziah may congratulate himself that most minorities vote Labour. But other minorities might well look at what is happening to the Jews and Labour and ask themselves whether, if this can happen to them, why could it not happen to us, if the political climate changes or a leader changes or it becomes expedient to pick on another group to scapegoat.
After all, theoretically, Labour are all for womens’ rights but that has not stopped them talking to gender segregated meetings or ignoring the rape of girls when convenient or even demanding that women allow biological males to share their spaces. They’re all in favour of gay rights but their leader takes money from the propaganda arm of a regime which hangs gay men from cranes and uses rape as a weapon in prison.
Once you start “othering” one group, you are sending out a signal not just to them but to everyone about your approach. Labour and the Tories both need to take note of this. We are all minorities in some way.
The real problem is that these solutions are not really compatible with what our government has already signed up for. That was a mistake.
That is the nub - we can do all sorts of things, as you say registration being however a pre-requisite for most of them. We don't seem to have started this. Plus the scope for c**k-up has got to be monumental in as you say such a frighteningly large job.
I can't see FOM stopping before any transition period now. If we wanted it to work from March next year we would have had to start work a year ago at least.
Didn't we agree last December that FOM would continue during any transition period anyway? The whole point of the transition is that all rules (including FOM and payment) continue as is even though we've left.
Well yes, but we only have a transition period if we have a deal. No deal, no transition, no freedom of movement.
Well agreed yes but your comment was "FOM stopping before any transition period" ... we've already agreed that won't happen. If there's no transition then there's an almighty long list of things we need to resolve but that simply won't happen. May will fold like a pack of cards and sign whatever Barnier gives her. And enough in Parliament will fold too.
This could be clearer but the position as I understand it from Chequers is that any FOM during the transition period will be restricted. The suggestion is that you will need proof of a job or an education place before you are allowed to come rather than having a period to look for one when you get here. What I think we can infer from the announcement today is that those who come during that period may not qualify for the 5 year right of residency either but it is not entirely clear because there is also reference to "working up" to the 5 years and it may be that this could happen after any transition period is finished.
Fair enough I was under the impression that FOM would continue as-is for any transition and that includes the right to remain afterwards. So controls would only kick in after the transition expired.
Even with Trump's very high shame threshold, I cannot see his failure to receive an invitation to the late Sen John McCain's memorial as anything other than deeply embarrassing, possibly damagingly so. That two of McCain's most high profile opponents – Bush Jr and Obama – have both been asked to deliver eulogies doubles down the pain on Trumpton. His absence will be conspicuous.
It’s embarrassing but it’s the price he has paid for a lack of basic decency towards a political opponent. In this case, revenge really has been a dish eaten very cold indeed.
The real problem is that these solutions are not really compatible with what our government has already signed up for. That was a mistake.
That is the nub - we can do all sorts of things, as you say registration being however a pre-requisite for most of them. We don't seem to have started this. Plus the scope for c**k-up has got to be monumental in as you say such a frighteningly large job.
I can't see FOM stopping before any transition period now. If we wanted it to work from March next year we would have had to start work a year ago at least.
Didn't we agree last December that FOM would continue during any transition period anyway? The whole point of the transition is that all rules (including FOM and payment) continue as is even though we've left.
Well yes, but we only have a transition period if we have a deal. No deal, no transition, no freedom of movement.
Well agreed yes but your comment was "FOM stopping before any transition period" ... we've already agreed that won't happen. If there's no transition then there's an almighty long list of things we need to resolve but that simply won't happen. May will fold like a pack of cards and sign whatever Barnier gives her. And enough in Parliament will fold too.
This could be clearer but the position as I understand it from Chequers is that any FOM during the transition period will be restricted. The suggestion is that you will need proof of a job or an education place before you are allowed to come rather than having a period to look for one when you get here. What I think we can infer from the announcement today is that those who come during that period may not qualify for the 5 year right of residency either but it is not entirely clear because there is also reference to "working up" to the 5 years and it may be that this could happen after any transition period is finished.
Fair enough I was under the impression that FOM would continue as-is for any transition and that includes the right to remain afterwards. So controls would only kick in after the transition expired.
Well its still up for grabs isn't it? There is certainly a difference of view between the UK and the EU on this.
Even with Trump's very high shame threshold, I cannot see his failure to receive an invitation to the late Sen John McCain's memorial as anything other than deeply embarrassing, possibly damagingly so. That two of McCain's most high profile opponents – Bush Jr and Obama – have both been asked to deliver eulogies doubles down the pain on Trumpton. His absence will be conspicuous.
It’s embarrassing but it’s the price he has paid for a lack of basic decency towards a political opponent. In this case, revenge really has been a dish eaten very cold indeed.
I'd like to believe it will hurt him but to be honest I think Trump will brush this off quite easily. Best hope of seeing Trump suffer, at least within the realms of decency, is him losing badly come the next election, although obviously that might not happen.
There is nothing wrong with being briefed but MPs should explain the sources of their information and not simply act as mouthpieces for others. That applies to Corbyn as much as to anyone else.
An enterprising journalist might want to check some of his Parliamentary speeches and see whether he is in the habit of merely repeating pre-written lines fed to him by others.
Yeah I have heard that as well, haven't checked it out myself but it seems plausible that they didn't use exact phrases. I took it as more a general they used the same arguments/points rather than being specific, although that is a generous interpretation. This is the bit I am least sure about.
AFAIK there was no singling out of Jewish MPs, happy to be corrected here (maybe I've missed something) but my impression was he was talking about (to use simply labelling) the pro Israeli side in a particular debate, there are far more MPs with (what could be labelled) a pro Israeli POV than there are Jewish MPs. Edit: Wouldn't there have been some Jewish MPs not on the other side of the debate anyway? I suppose it depends when the debate was but there have been Jewish MPs who have been strong critics of Israel.
Claiming that pro Israeli MPs would push pro Israeli talking points and that the Israeli embassy would also assist in pushing pro Israeli talking points isn't controversial IMO. I assume similar would happen with a fair few countries were you to swap Israel for another country in that sentence.
Corbyn and those around him aren't pro Russia, certainly not in the way some MPs are pro Israel (and not in the way the right like to talk about) but people are happy to make various accusations about Corbyn, those around him and various Russian people in power. Would this suddenly be racist if the Russians were not (mostly) White people or would the reasons people push this line still exist independently of their suddenly different ethnicity?
I don’t have answers to your questions about what happened in the debate. Perhaps let’s wait for more facts to emerge.
Claiming that pro-Israeli MPs would make pro-Israeli points and got assistance from the Israeli Embassy is fine if it is true. It is not fine if it is not true. Then it is an assumption, possibly a prejudiced one.
That is why it is necessary to be clear what Corbyn claimed and what evidence he had for his claims.
Comments
In fact, NI is a solvable problem that will now not get solved because the Remainer obsession with NI will force us into No Deal. Not sure how you blame this on JRM. We should never even consider letting the threat of violence undermine the rights of the majority of the UK public that voted to leave the EU, which of course meant leaving the SM and CU.
So in fact, JRM was right to say that all options need to be considered for the NI border. The rantings of the Remainer core on this site really just betrays how scared they are of JRM. If they really thought he was an idiot of no consequence, they wouldn't need to spend so much effort on him would they.....
Let me stop you right there.
If so, why should they stay out of Schengen any longer after we leave? I hate to say that JRM might have a point, but on this, it may be possible - at least, at some point after we complete Brexit.
President Emmanuel Macron suffered a major political blow Tuesday as his popular environment minister resigned live on radio -- without informing the French leader beforehand.
Nicolas Hulot, one of the most respected members of the cabinet among the French public, took even his interviewers by surprise on the France Inter radio station when announcing his move.
https://www.afp.com/en/news/826/blow-frances-macron-star-minister-quits-doc-18n6ey1
Doing it live on air? Why can't they do it properly, like skipping an important security meeting, ignoring a conference you're hosting, then hanging around for the press photographer to show up to snap you penning your resignation letter?
It states that EU citizens will have until June 2021 to apply for settled status. This seems to be a pilot. I am completely bemused we did not do this a year ago. It is yet another example of the apparent paralysis that the government has suffered from over the last 18 months.
It is not immediately obvious if any EU citizen will have the right to come and settle here until June 2021 or whether those applying for that status will need to show that they have been here since some earlier date (31st March 2019 being the obvious one).
Edit, there is a bit later on in the piece saying that the scheme will open up fully on 30th March 19 and will apply to those who can show residence for 5 years, that would be back to 2014. Can't see the EU being thrilled with that.
Further edit. Presumably 5 years back from June 2021 will get us back to June 2016 or those resident at the date of the referendum.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6105741/Corbyn-claims-Israel-controls-speeches-British-MPs-remarks-slammed-anti-Semitic.html
All the fake words of contrition over Windrush and they are creating the same problem.
"Mercedes Bunz, a senior lecturer in digital technology at King's College London, told BBC News it was highly unlikely that Google was deliberately ranking news according to political bias."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45331210
"Those who are resident in the UK by 31 December 2020 but who have not lived in the UK for five years will get pre-settled status which allows them to live and work in the UK until they reach the five year mark and can claim settled status."
not mean that if they are here before 31 Dec 2020 they will have the right to stay here for five years and then get settled status? What determines "pre-settled status"?
And yet people still claim that Corbyn isn't worse than Hitler?
(last comment there is sarcasm)
https://twitter.com/Dr_PhilippaW/status/1034408905252765696
‘Because they all came up with the same key words. It was rather like reading a European document looking for buzz-words.
It is the sort of thing alex jones would say.
With air travel, on arrival at Gatwick, Luton or Stansted (can't speak for Heathrow) you are bussed direct from plane to UK side of passport control and then treated exactly the same as if you had arrived from Manchester, Jersey etc. so no ID check of any kind upon arrival.
With travel documents, Ryanair insist on a passport, most others, including Aer Lingus will accept any photo ID including a bus pass or a work ID. How anyone works out if you are a UK or Irish citizen I have no idea!
And lo it was indeed rolled out.
Does she have an evil uncle, mean Heinz Bunz ... ?
Jonathan Sacks said Mr Corbyn had depicted a group of British citizens as “essentially alien” when he said in 2013 that British Zionists "don't understand English irony".
Lord Sacks, who served as chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, said Mr Corbyn was an “anti-Semite” in comments which are likely to pile even greater pressure on the Labour leader.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/28/jeremy-corbyns-zionist-remarks-offensive-statement-made-senior/
By which you mean Labour members and MPs.
Didn't you hear, he claimed people on one side of the debate come with similar points for their side of the argument. He even mentioned the Israeli ambassador! He is well known for being an opponent of the occupation of Palestine. I mean really the holocaust just doesn't compare to that. Even saying they are similar just insults the memory of the suffering that has been caused these last few years.
Supposedly upright, left-leaning, morally upstanding Labour voters such as @RochdalePioneers and @TheJezziah think it's all a conspiracy by the right wing press and if they don't care about the transparent anti-semitism as they knock on their doors locally promising better rural bus links, then I can't imagine anyone else will.
I think for me the interesting thing is that prior to these revelations I would not have said that Jezza was an anti-semite, only that he has presided over a party wherein anti-semites feel empowered.
I would now say that he is an anti-semite. Not that he or his followers care what anyone else thinks.
Although I guess only his crazier bits would make it into meme videos...
Reading into this that he was saying all Jewish people are not properly English is a little bit of a stretch.
Their officer was called Karl Fucker
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TEKOhVOtnjUC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=Karl+Fucker&source=bl&ots=SMVLMXkciG&sig=eYaaNCWpN_8YfVG0JYXxkehhAmk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVx86oipDdAhWIAsAKHbsMC6sQ6AEwCHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=Karl Fucker&f=false
Although in fairness I imagine there are plenty of things that are true that you refuse to believe so no harm there.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1034426547787235328
The reason this doesn't work for the general public is not because people are fans of or even don't care about anti semitism, although the latter could be true anyway.
The reason this attack line doesn't work for the general public is you sound as crazy as the conspiracy theorists on youtube. They do get a following but most people just think the propaganda is all too much of a stretch.
'Should' not 'will'. It takes two to tango.
Catholics in NI on the other hand would be much more concerned by the removal of the CTA
ExiledinScotland: many thanks for posting & williamglenn appreciate the recommendation. Sad about Arlene Foster; just about the only interviewee who wasn’t positive.
If the Chief Rabbi goes in for a bit of this is a codeword here for this and if you interpret this a certain way that goes against the context then you can clearly see this politician secretly means this thing they have never stated then I would accuse him of sounding a bit like youtube conspiracy theory guys because that is what youtube conspiracy guys sound like.
I don't have any time left for Corbyn.
First off I have never actually listened to a youtube conspiracy theorist (although I did see but not pay for the KSI vs Logan Paul fight if that counts). Have you?
Second of all, I don't think it's reasonable for you to compare the former Chief Rabbi (not me, btw), to one of them. I think he brings a more thoughtful perspective on it. Perhaps informed by his studies not to say his doctorate in philosophy ("Collective Responsibility" so Google tells me, whatever that is).
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1034473317737082881
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-45330161
If the MPs did not use the phrases attributed to them, the question of where they came from does not arise. If they did, then it might but you would hope that Corbyn would have some evidence for his allegations. If they did use those phrases, then did Corbyn have evidence for his allegations? And if he didn’t, why make them?
If what he said was untrue then it is legitimate to criticise him for making untrue allegations and for any inbuilt prejudices such untrue allegations might show. (E.g. an assumption without evidence that Jewish MPs merely repeat verbatim what the Israeli Embassy has given them.)
It also raises the issue as to whether any of the things he says in his speeches, whether in Parliament or outside, have been fed to him by third party sources and, if so, whether he discloses this in Parliament.
There is nothing wrong with being briefed but MPs should explain the sources of their information and not simply act as mouthpieces for others. That applies to Corbyn as much as to anyone else.
An enterprising journalist might want to check some of his Parliamentary speeches and see whether he is in the habit of merely repeating pre-written lines fed to him by others.
I didn't compare the Chief Rabbi to a youtube conspiracy theorist, merely gave a list of things that they do that if copied by him would mean he sounds like them. If for example he has just seen some of the misleading coverage in the press and come to the conclusion that Corbyn must be racist then that is no different to say a random person who only pays a little bit of attention to the news, maybe reads a right wing newspaper and has come to that conclusion. Being misinformed is actively different to trying to misinform others.
One can understand therefore the communities sensitivity when a threat appears, whether it’s real or not.
‘Dear Mr Rees Mogg, we hope this letter finds you well. We found your recent thoughts on indiscriminate searching of people as they cross the Irish border most intriguing. We would love to hear more of these truly amazing ideas in person and at length. Please accept our invite to speak directly to our residents any time in the very near future. You wouldn’t believe how eager we all are to meet you face to face. Sincerely, the Falls Road Residents Association’
Mogg has, apparently, yet to respond.
AFAIK there was no singling out of Jewish MPs, happy to be corrected here (maybe I've missed something) but my impression was he was talking about (to use simply labelling) the pro Israeli side in a particular debate, there are far more MPs with (what could be labelled) a pro Israeli POV than there are Jewish MPs. Edit: Wouldn't there have been some Jewish MPs not on the other side of the debate anyway? I suppose it depends when the debate was but there have been Jewish MPs who have been strong critics of Israel.
Claiming that pro Israeli MPs would push pro Israeli talking points and that the Israeli embassy would also assist in pushing pro Israeli talking points isn't controversial IMO. I assume similar would happen with a fair few countries were you to swap Israel for another country in that sentence.
Corbyn and those around him aren't pro Russia, certainly not in the way some MPs are pro Israel (and not in the way the right like to talk about) but people are happy to make various accusations about Corbyn, those around him and various Russian people in power. Would this suddenly be racist if the Russians were not (mostly) White people or would the reasons people push this line still exist independently of their suddenly different ethnicity?
@TheJezziah may congratulate himself that most minorities vote Labour. But other minorities might well look at what is happening to the Jews and Labour and ask themselves whether, if this can happen to them, why could it not happen to us, if the political climate changes or a leader changes or it becomes expedient to pick on another group to scapegoat.
After all, theoretically, Labour are all for womens’ rights but that has not stopped them talking to gender segregated meetings or ignoring the rape of girls when convenient or even demanding that women allow biological males to share their spaces. They’re all in favour of gay rights but their leader takes money from the propaganda arm of a regime which hangs gay men from cranes and uses rape as a weapon in prison.
Once you start “othering” one group, you are sending out a signal not just to them but to everyone about your approach. Labour and the Tories both need to take note of this. We are all minorities in some way.
Claiming that pro-Israeli MPs would make pro-Israeli points and got assistance from the Israeli Embassy is fine if it is true. It is not fine if it is not true. Then it is an assumption, possibly a prejudiced one.
That is why it is necessary to be clear what Corbyn claimed and what evidence he had for his claims.