An ordinary dinner party, the sort of occasion we all enjoy. The LEAVERs are exchanging witty stories. And look at the REMAINERs; aren’t they pretty? Look at the way they laugh, they’re delightful. But now the conversation turns to more serious matters.
LEAVER 1: “I wonder if the Government should stay out of the EU Customs Union”
LEAVER 2: “I think it should.”
LEAVER 1: “Good. Then we’re all agreed.”
But oh dear, what’s this? One of the REMAINERs is about to embarrass us all…
REMAINER: “I think the Government should stay in the Customs Union, so that the Pound can reach a level that would keep our exports competitive.”
The REMAINER has foolishly attempted to join the conversation with a wild and dangerous opinion of his own! What half-baked drivel! See how the LEAVERS look at him with utter contempt!
LEAVER 2: “Alastair, we’re going home!!”
REMAINERS - KNOW YOUR LIMITS!
Look at the effect of education on a LEAVER and a REMAINER’s mind. Education passes into the mind of a LEAVER. See how the information is evenly and tidily stored.
Now see the same thing on a REMAINER. At first we see a similar result. But now look. Still at a reasonably low level of education his brain suddenly overloads. He can't take in complicated information. He becomes frantically and absurdly deranged.
Look at these venomous harridans. They went to university. Hard to believe they are all under 25. Yes, over-education leads to ugliness, premature aging and beard growth. And ranting on online political betting fora.
Now, let’s see the proper way.
LEAVER 1: “Good. So we’re all agreed. We should stay out of the Customs Union.”
REMAINER: “Oh, I don’t know anything about the Northern Ireland Backstop, I’m afraid, but I do love little kittens! They’re so soft, and furry.”
LEAVER 2: “What a delightful thought, you dear, sweet, fragile little thing! I adore you, Alastair!”
REMAINERS - KNOW YOUR LIMITS. In thought, be plain and simple, and let your natural sweetness shine through!
So you've taken an amusing sketch that satirises the patronising approach society used to have towards women, and transcribed remainers into the place where the original refers to women. I am not sure what exactly the point of this is. I can see no humour in it at all. You are presumably not insinuating that leavers are patronising remainers. It's just a bit odd.
Well, having read my "homage" version of the Enfield sketch, what do you think my REAL position is re. Brexit?
She will not take a different approach. She is proving to you she is a bloody difficult woman as the whole nuance is moving to the marginalisation of ERG. The mood is changing, you can see it on here, you can see it in the media, indeed the daily mail is fully on board with her, and in discussions on twitter and social media
As far as Chequers is concerned virtually no one in the electorate has a clue what it is. Go down any high street and you would struggle to find even one voter who could describe it
I am sorry, but your particular brexit is over
May has been humiliated by the EU, again. They offered her 15 minutes before tossing her out to get her own dinner. The moment she was out the door, the President of the EP rejected Chequers and said it was 'not acceptable' and they leaked that the November summit had been cancelled. Just waiting for Tusk's tweet to complete the experience.
Quite how you get from there to the mood is changing is beyond me. May is driving straight down the path to no deal. If I am charitable for a minute and assume she has a plan, it is that she is going to go for no deal, rally the country
Well ultimately, if Brexit is to allow customs and regulatory divergence, then there has to be a customs border, and the only thing to be decided is where it is located, in the sea or on land. If we are to remain in lockstep with the EU then why Brexit?
Special status for NI in terms of being in both UK and EU is one way past this. Not such a daft idea.
It is a completely daft idea that drives a coach and horses through the GFA. If this backstop goes ahead then NI will be in a hellish undemocratic limbo. Part of the UK and electing MPs to Westminster but not subject to British laws. Subject to EU laws but not electing MEPs and not having their national government's votes in the European Council. It is an absurd suggestion that violates the GFA completely.
So keep it in the EU. After all, its people voted for that.
Not quite. They voted to in a referendum to stay with the rest of the UK also staying, not to stay without the rest of the U.K: there’s a difference.
As I said downthread, keep London and Scotland in the EU too. Both also devolved administrations.
Imagination is required.
Imagination that breaks up our country?
Or, Remainers accepting defeat.
I’ll give you a clue. Accepting defeat is more likely to get through Parliament. At every point so far, Remainers in the HoC have lost or surrendered. Apart from a single process point which has been nullified by the sounds of it.
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
Yes indeed.
I appreciate we have had a lot of advances sonce 1969, including an information technology revolution, but I can't help feeling that in the long term historians will look back at the moon landings as a peak for our current civilisation - the equivalent of 117AD for the Roman Empire. I fear we are on a long, gradual descent to a new dark age (sadly).
Disagreed completely.
The computers in our cars are more advanced than those that took men to the moon. The technology to go to the moon is there, better than it was 50 years ago - it's just that going for the sake of going lost its appeal. When we return to the moon - and we will - it will be for more of a purpose.
She will not take a different approach. She is proving to you she is a bloody difficult woman as the whole nuance is moving to the marginalisation of ERG. The mood is changing, you can see it on here, you can see it in the media, indeed the daily mail is fully on board with her, and in discussions on twitter and social media
As far as Chequers is concerned virtually no one in the electorate has a clue what it is. Go down any high street and you would struggle to find even one voter who could describe it
I am sorry, but your particular brexit is over
May has been humiliated by the EU, again. They offered her 15 minutes before tossing her out to get her own dinner. The moment she was out the door, the President of the EP rejected Chequers and said it was 'not acceptable' and they leaked that the November summit had been cancelled. Just waiting for Tusk's tweet to complete the experience.
Quite how you get from there to the mood is changing is beyond me. May is driving straight down the path to no deal. If I am charitable for a minute and assume she has a plan, it is that she is going to go for no deal, rally the country
Well ultimately, if Brexit is to allow customs and regulatory divergence, then there has to be a customs border, and the only thing to be decided is where it is located, in the sea or on land. If we are to remain in lockstep with the EU then why Brexit?
Special status for NI in terms of being in both UK and EU is one way past this. Not such a daft idea.
It is a completely daft idea that drives a coach and horses through the GFA. If this backstop goes ahead then NI will be in a hellish undemocratic limbo. Part of the UK and electing MPs to Westminster but not subject to British laws. Subject to EU laws but not electing MEPs and not having their national government's votes in the European Council. It is an absurd suggestion that violates the GFA completely.
So keep it in the EU. After all, its people voted for that.
Not quite. They voted to in a referendum to stay with the rest of the UK also staying, not to stay without the rest of the U.K: there’s a difference.
As I said downthread, keep London and Scotland in the EU too. Both also devolved administrations.
Imagination is required.
Yes, and Cardiff, and Monmouthshire, but not Newport between them. Or maybe Liverpool and Manchester as little islands. Or we could repartition Ulster to keep Antrim and most of Down outside the CU and SM, because they voted to Leave?
Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
Nick - I have expressed great concern over how many posters are using unnecessary language, sheer arrogance, I know better than you attitude, and much worse.
I do try to argue my case, but am equally up for persuasion if someone can make a better case, but I stop reading once I see this behaviour.
It seems to run through our politics from the highest offices in the land and elsewhere and I will call it out when I see it.
It is not that I am any better than anyone else but everyone, yes everyone, deserves to be treated with respect
It's always pleasant to debate with you. Of course, there's a very British danger (as Cyclefree has pointed out) of rating manner over content - I know centrist voters who would consider voting for either Corbyn and Rees-Mogg just because they like their manner, even though neither is remotely close to their political preferences. Conversely there are people who are politically moderate but alienate voters just by shrieking at them.
She will not take a different approach. She is proving to you she is a bloody difficult woman as the whole nuance is moving to the marginalisation of ERG. The mood is changing, you can see it on here, you can see it in the media, indeed the daily mail is fully on board with her, and in discussions on twitter and social media
As far as Chequers is concerned virtually no one in the electorate has a clue what it is. Go down any high street and you would struggle to find even one voter who could describe it
I am sorry, but your particular brexit is over
May has been humiliated by the EU, again. They offered her 15 minutes before tossing her out to get her own dinner. The moment she was out the door, the President of the EP rejected Chequers and said it was 'not acceptable' and they leaked that the November summit had been cancelled. Just waiting for Tusk's tweet to complete the experience.
Quite how you get from there to the mood is changing is beyond me. May is driving straight down the path to no deal. If I am charitable for a minute and assume she has a plan, it is that she is going to go for no deal, rally the country
Well ultimately, if Brexit is to allow customs and regulatory divergence, then there has to be a customs border, and the only thing to be decided is where it is located, in the sea or on land. If we are to remain in lockstep with the EU then why Brexit?
Special status for NI in terms of being in both UK and EU is one way past this. Not such a daft idea.
It is a completely daft
So keep it in the EU. After all, its people voted for that.
Not quite. They voted to in a referendum to stay with the rest of the UK also staying, not to stay without the rest of the U.K: there’s a difference.
As I said downthread, keep London and Scotland in the EU too. Both also devolved administrations.
Imagination is required.
Yes, and Cardiff, and Monmouthshire, but not Newport between them. Or maybe Liverpool and Manchester as little islands. Or we could repartition Ulster to keep Antrim and most of Down outside the CU and SM, because they voted to Leave?
A non starter. As I’m sure you know.
Really? Have you any better ideas? Brexit is such a mess it is time to think the unthinkable. All of the nations and regions I have mentioned already have devolved governments. You are just being silly.
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
An ordinary dinner party, the sort of occasion we all enjoy. The LEAVERs are exchanging witty stories. And look at the REMAINERs; aren’t they pretty? Look at the way they laugh, they’re delightful. But now the conversation turns to more serious matters.
LEAVER 1: “I wonder if the Government should stay out of the EU Customs Union”
So you've taken an amusing sketch that satirises the patronising approach society used to have towards women, and transcribed remainers into the place where the original refers to women. I am not sure what exactly the point of this is. I can see no humour in it at all. You are presumably not insinuating that leavers are patronising remainers. It's just a bit odd.
Friday morning going slow I'm watching the election show Lots of Ladbrokes slips on the floor Memories of the night before Out knocking up and having fun Now I've stopped reading The Sun Waiting for the results to show But why I voted no one knows
Voting, polling Blogging, trolling And now I'm all alone In Brexit Land My only home
I think it's time to write a thread To vent the bemusement in my head Spent my money on online bookies Got nowt here but all the cookies Clean my suit and my rosette Election promises to forget Start campaigning all over again Kid myself I'm having fun
Voting, polling Blogging, trolling And now I'm all alone In Brexit Land My only home
Looking out from my worldview I've really nothing else to do Seems like I have started fretting Let's read Political Betting Forget The Mirror and The Times The battle bus with such great lines Look around and I can see A thousand punters just like me
Voting, polling Blogging, trolling And now I'm all alone In Brexit Land My only home
Voting, polling Blogging, trolling And now I'm all alone In Brexit Land My only home
Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
Nick - I have expressed great concern over how many posters are using unnecessary language, sheer arrogance, I know better than you attitude, and much worse.
I do try to argue my case, but am equally up for persuasion if someone can make a better case, but I stop reading once I see this behaviour.
It seems to run through our politics from the highest offices in the land and elsewhere and I will call it out when I see it.
It is not that I am any better than anyone else but everyone, yes everyone, deserves to be treated with respect
Of course, there's a very British danger (as Cyclefree has pointed out) of rating manner over content - I know centrist voters who would consider voting for either Corbyn and Rees-Mogg just because they like their manner, even though neither is remotely close to their political preferences. Conversely there are people who are politically moderate but alienate voters just by shrieking at them.
It's not an unreasonable fear. Though I dare say a few not necessarily Labour supporting people here have expressed they might vote for you in part due to your fine manners
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Jesus. You're almost gleeful that the EU - in the form of France - is making life horribly uncertain for Brits in France, even as the British government unilaterally guarantees the rights of French people in the UK.
We're the good guys here, they're the bad guys, for once there is no grey area - and yet still you're cheering for the EU? Go jump in a lake.
Are you really this much of a twat? They should accede just because what, you want them to be nice? Jeez. Even I said from the outset that the Brits should not give concessions unilaterally to EU citizens, despite what some wanky Leavers (R Tyndall foremost amongst them) wanted because, well duh, it is a negotiation and doing what we did meant that we would be leaving our citizens in the EU high and dry.
And lo, it came to pass.
Except, it didn't. Harry Cole misread it.
lol
Dunt matter. It's the principle. Citizens are part of the negotiations.
She will not take a different approach. She is proving to you she is a bloody difficult woman as the whole nuance is moving to the marginalisation of ERG. The mood is changing, you can see it on here, you can see it in the media, indeed the daily mail is fully on board with her, and in discussions on twitter and social media
As far as Chequers is concerned virtually no one in the electorate has a clue what it is. Go down any high street and you would struggle to find even one voter who could describe it
I am sorry, but your particular brexit is over
May has been humiliated by the EU, again.
Quite how you get from there to the mood is changing is beyond me. May is driving straight down the path to no deal. If I am charitable for a minute and assume she has a plan, it is that she is going to go for no deal, rally the country
Well ultimately, if Brexit is to allow customs and regulatory divergence, then there has to be a customs border, and the only thing to be decided is where it is located, in the sea or on land. If we are to remain in lockstep with the EU then why Brexit?
Special status for NI in terms of being in both UK and EU is one way past this. Not such a daft idea.
It is a completely daft .
So keep it in the EU. After all, its people voted for that.
Not quite. They voted to in a referendum to stay with the rest of the UK also staying, not to stay without the rest of the U.K: there’s a difference.
As I said downthread, keep London and Scotland in the EU too. Both also devolved administrations.
Imagination is required.
Yes, and Cardiff, and Monmouthshire, but not Newport between them. Or maybe Liverpool and Manchester as little islands. Or we could repartition Ulster to keep Antrim and most of Down outside the CU and SM, because they voted to Leave?
A non starter. As I’m sure you know.
Scotland and NI are not unreasoable. Both have long had seperate legal systems and extensive devolution. London would be trickier, though perhaps a special economic zone could be possible.
Ultimately we need either partition or a Brexit acceptable to the majority of both Remainers and Leavers. No sign of the latter.
Note that I currently live on the wrong side of those borders, although Leicester voted Remain.
I find that hard to believe, only for the reason that it was clear back when it was agreed that there was going to be disagreement about how a meaningful vote was to be defined - which is to say, there were always going to people who would claim it would not be a meaningful vote no matter what, and other people pushing to make it as meaningless as possible.
So my first instinct would be that it is yet another Brexit skirmish along familiar lines, perhaps dragging in a few non-regular combatants due to the issue but ultimately just part of the same old issue that they parked before.
Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
Nick - I have expressed great concern over how many posters are using unnecessary language, sheer arrogance, I know better than you attitude, and much worse.
I do try to argue my case, but am equally up for persuasion if someone can make a better case, but I stop reading once I see this behaviour.
It seems to run through our politics from the highest offices in the land and elsewhere and I will call it out when I see it.
It is not that I am any better than anyone else but everyone, yes everyone, deserves to be treated with respect
It's always pleasant to debate with you. Of course, there's a very British danger (as Cyclefree has pointed out) of rating manner over content - I know centrist voters who would consider voting for either Corbyn and Rees-Mogg just because they like their manner, even though neither is remotely close to their political preferences. Conversely there are people who are politically moderate but alienate voters just by shrieking at them.
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
The other piece of transportation tech dating from 1969, was of course Concorde. Will there ever be another supersonic airliner?
Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
Brexit has turned everyone mad (and I include myself in that)
In Westminster your party even thinks Brexit is more important than calling out a Speaker complicit in a culture of abuse and intimidation against women clerks!
Did you ever think you would see the day the Labour Party would sink so low Dr Plamer?
She's not waiting, she's sent her letter which is what she means by "done my bit".
Exactly and bring it on - TM would win and would be secure for another year. Don't you see a problem for you in there
I don't. It's now or never for it to happen before Brexit. A year from now is after the dust has settled from Brexit and in plenty of time before the next election.
Even if a challenge now is no more successful than Sir Anthony Meyer's challenge was in 1989 it won't prevent a more successful challenge next year. It's worth a shot.
She will not take a different approach. She is proving to you she is a bloody difficult woman as the whole nuance is moving to the marginalisation of ERG. The mood is changing, you can see it on here, you can see it in the media, indeed the daily mail is fully on board with her, and in discussions on twitter and social media
As far as Chequers is concerned virtually no one in the electorate has a clue what it is. Go down any high street and you would struggle to find even one voter who could describe it
I am sorry, but your particular brexit is over
May has been humiliated by the EU, again. They offered her 15 minutes before tossing her out to get her own dinner. The moment she was out the door, the President of the EP rejected Chequers and said it was 'not acceptable' and they leaked that the November summit had been cancelled. Just waiting for Tusk's tweet to complete the experience.
Quite how you get from there to the mood is changing is beyond me. May is driving straight down the path to no deal. If I am charitable for a minute and assume she has a plan, it is that she is going to go for no deal, rally the country
Well ultimately, if Brexit is to allow customs and regulatory divergence, then there has to be a customs border, and the only thing to be decided is where it is located, in the sea or on land. If we are to remain in lockstep with the EU then why Brexit?
Special status for NI in terms of being in both UK and EU is one way past this. Not such a daft idea.
It is a completely daft idea that drives a coach and horses through the GFA. If this backstop goes ahead then NI will be in a hellish undemocratic limbo. Part of the UK and electing MPs to Westminster but not subject to British laws. Subject to EU laws but not electing MEPs and not having their national government's votes in the European Council. It is an absurd suggestion that violates the GFA completely.
So keep it in the EU. After all, its people voted for that.
Not quite. They voted to in a referendum to stay with the rest of the UK also staying, not to stay without the rest of the U.K: there’s a difference.
As I said downthread, keep London and Scotland in the EU too. Both also devolved administrations.
Imagination is required.
Putting the hard border along the Cheviots would be a workable solution. The EU would still have 28 members, including a 32-county Eire and an independent Scotland.
She's not waiting, she's sent her letter which is what she means by "done my bit".
Exactly and bring it on - TM would win and would be secure for another year. Don't you see a problem for you in there
Sorry to break it to you Mr G, but it it comes to the vote, I don’t think May has a chance of staying.
She’ll probably lose a vote. But if she wins on say 60% she won’t be able to progress legislatipnwithout those who voted against her.
Here’s a clue. If she was convinced she’d win, she’d have egged the letter writers on...
Hell, she could probably right a letter herself - so long as you are calling for a vote of no confidence in the leader does it even matter if you plan to vote in favour of said leader?
Another year of business not knowing what investment decisions to make is no answer at all. Especially as it will move us no nearer the EU having to respect us at the end of that extra year.
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
I think it even more astonishing that we were on the moon just 25 years after the first real modern rocket in the V2.
Some of the technology was very rudimentary by modern standards. The Russian Space Museum in Moscow has a great display. I think that as a world we were far less safety conscious in those days.
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
Of course it can be done - but consider that at the height of the Apollo program, it was costing the US the equivalent of $80bn a year. Give SpaceX that kind of cash, and they’d be there in 3 years, tops.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Jesus. You're almost gleeful that the EU - in the form of France - is making life horribly uncertain for Brits in France, even as the British government unilaterally guarantees the rights of French people in the UK.
We're the good guys here, they're the bad guys, for once there is no grey area - and yet still you're cheering for the EU? Go jump in a lake.
Are you really this much of a twat? They should accede just because what, you want them to be nice? Jeez. Even I said from the outset that the Brits should not give concessions unilaterally to EU citizens, despite what some wanky Leavers (R Tyndall foremost amongst them) wanted because, well duh, it is a negotiation and doing what we did meant that we would be leaving our citizens in the EU high and dry.
And lo, it came to pass.
Except, it didn't. Harry Cole misread it.
lol
Dunt matter. It's the principle. Citizens are part of the negotiations.
With all due respect, you are a turd-eating old fool, and you constantly smell of your own urine.
You seem to be running low on responses to use when you are shown to be a complete twat.
First man is really two films - the technical attempt to reach the moon and the psychological analysis of Armstrong. The first is compelling- the second less so. But worth the effort.
Yes, it’s been obvious that fanatics like you, and your brethren in Parliament, have been entirely unwilling to compromise for the past two years, and indeed have become seemingly more extreme every time something is suggested that might soften the outcome. It is a shame that outlandish solutions now must be considered. But there it is.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
You’re right as usual RN. It only makes things worse.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
You haven’t. It doesn’t.
Unless perhaps it's a ruse to cover up some fudge. Hard to see how, though.
Yes, it’s been obvious that fanatics like you, and your brethren in Parliament, have been entirely unwilling to compromise for the past two years, and indeed have become seemingly more extreme every time something is suggested that might soften the outcome. It is a shame that outlandish solutions now must be considered. But there it is.
‘Fanatics’. The majority voted for the country to Leave. The only fanatics are those who oppose that democratic decision.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.
Another year of business not knowing what investment decisions to make is no answer at all. Especially as it will move us no nearer the EU having to respect us at the end of that extra year.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
Well quite. It finds a way to kick the can, but if they cannot figure a solution in the time allotted already there's no reason they will with an extra year.
Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
Brexit has turned everyone mad (and I include myself in that)
In Westminster your party even thinks Brexit is more important than calling out a Speaker complicit in a culture of abuse and intimidation against women clerks!
Did you ever think you would see the day the Labour Party would sink so low Dr Plamer?
Well, I have never been a Bercow fan, but clearing him out and not clearing out the dozen offending MPs and their enablers, would be doing a completely inadequate response. In the HoC debate there did seem fairly common ideas over who they are.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
The other piece of transportation tech dating from 1969, was of course Concorde. Will there ever be another supersonic airliner?
There definitely could be another Concorde, the technology is there, but there is just not the demand for one, compare the Dreamliner to a 707, technology in planes has moved on massively, even Concorde had regular updates. My point is that the technology no longer exists to send a man to the moon and bring them back. Remember in 1971 America sent an electric car to the moon, an electric car in 1971!
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
China will send people to the moon. They have an active programme that is well on the way. They are cautious in their announcements but I would expect it within a decade.
Yes, it’s been obvious that fanatics like you, and your brethren in Parliament, have been entirely unwilling to compromise for the past two years, and indeed have become seemingly more extreme every time something is suggested that might soften the outcome. It is a shame that outlandish solutions now must be considered. But there it is.
‘Fanatics’. The majority voted for the country to Leave. The only fanatics are those who oppose that democratic decision.
Yes, Leave. Not the Hard No Deal Brexit you now champion. 48-52 is not a vote for complete isolation. Grow up.
Assuming May isn't an actual bona fide idiot (debatable at this stage) then:
1) This proposed extra year of vassalage solves none of the outstanding issues; but, 2) it will almost certainly enrage her party to new heights of froth
Therefore we must conclude that she *intends* to be VONCed for this.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?
Yes, to solve our problem. Which it doesn't do. It's a red herring.
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
Of course it can be done - but consider that at the height of the Apollo program, it was costing the US the equivalent of $80bn a year. Give SpaceX that kind of cash, and they’d be there in 3 years, tops.
It really can't. The last time a human left the earth's orbit was in 1972, thing about that, for whatever reason in the last 46 years not a single human has left the earth's orbit. If it could be done now then China would have done it ,
Right now no-one can get anyone into Low earth orbit, let alone the moon. OK, so it's a bit of a transition time post RUD from Russia, SLS going nowhere and a massively overcautious approach on Commercial crew. But still he ISS astronauts are effectively stranded right now !
Yes, it’s been obvious that fanatics like you, and your brethren in Parliament, have been entirely unwilling to compromise for the past two years, and indeed have become seemingly more extreme every time something is suggested that might soften the outcome. It is a shame that outlandish solutions now must be considered. But there it is.
‘Fanatics’. The majority voted for the country to Leave. The only fanatics are those who oppose that democratic decision.
Yes, Leave. Not the Hard No Deal Brexit you now champion. 48-52 is not a vote for complete isolation. Grow up.
Another false dichotomy-fier.
The alternative to this fudge is not no deal. It is a different approach.
It might be that she's just be conned by the EU and the oleaginous Olly Robbins into making another concession for the EU to bank-and-thank and offer nothing in return.
Only this time, to really hammer home that they're just *toying* with her, they've conned her into making a concession that they don't care about, and achieves nothing useful, but will further drive a wedge between her and what remains of her authority.
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
The other piece of transportation tech dating from 1969, was of course Concorde. Will there ever be another supersonic airliner?
There definitely could be another Concorde, the technology is there, but there is just not the demand for one, compare the Dreamliner to a 707, technology in planes has moved on massively, even Concorde had regular updates. My point is that the technology no longer exists to send a man to the moon and bring them back. Remember in 1971 America sent an electric car to the moon, an electric car in 1971!
I don't understand your point. The actual hardware doesn't exist at the moment but that doesn't mean we have lost the ability to reproduce it. The Chinese are sending rovers to the moon, and I can't see that it would be that much more difficult for them to send astronauts.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
You’re right as usual RN. It only makes things worse.
Not according to business and Barnier has said this evening they need more time to explore a UK wide customs union to overcome the Irish problem
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
You’re right as usual RN. It only makes things worse.
Not according to business and Barnier has said this evening they need more time to explore a UK wide customs union to overcome the Irish problem
How does adding an extra year to the transition period do either of those things?
It might be that she's just be conned by the EU and the oleaginous Olly Robbins into making another concession for the EU to bank-and-thank and offer nothing in return.
Only this time, to really hammer home that they're just *toying* with her, they've conned her into making a concession that they don't care about, and achieves nothing useful, but will further drive a wedge between her and what remains of her authority.
In fairness, she’s “considering” it. Not accepting of it at this point. Assuming you mean the extended transition?
To be a bit more explicit, I can see why business leaders would want a longer transition, and that there could be an argument for an extra transition year if it is thought that the time is needed to finalise the exact details of a trade deal. However, we haven't even started discussing those details, and they aren't the stumbling block at the moment, so it's bizarre to put this forward as some kind of way forward on the backstop issue.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?
They presumably are at their wits end and wondered if it would help the PM.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
You’re right as usual RN. It only makes things worse.
Not according to business and Barnier has said this evening they need more time to explore a UK wide customs union to overcome the Irish problem
How does adding an extra year to the transition period do either of those things?
The Irish problem is immediate, the third year gives business the time it needs to adapt to the new environment
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
Jesus. You're almost gleeful that the EU - in the form of France - is making life horribly uncertain for Brits in France, even as the British government unilaterally guarantees the rights of French people in the UK.
We're the good guys here, they're the bad guys, for once there is no grey area - and yet still you're cheering for the EU? Go jump in a lake.
Are you really this much of a twat? They should accede just because what, you want them to be nice? Jeez. Even I said from the outset that the Brits should not give concessions unilaterally to EU citizens, despite what some wanky Leavers (R Tyndall foremost amongst them) wanted because, well duh, it is a negotiation and doing what we did meant that we would be leaving our citizens in the EU high and dry.
And lo, it came to pass.
Except, it didn't. Harry Cole misread it.
lol
Dunt matter. It's the principle. Citizens are part of the negotiations.
With all due respect, you are a turd-eating old fool, and you constantly smell of your own urine.
You seem to be running low on responses to use when you are shown to be a complete twat.
I was offering the olive branch of respect. A call for peace. And this is how you respond? Calm down.
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
China will send people to the moon. They have an active programme that is well on the way. They are cautious in their announcements but I would expect it within a decade.
Not a chance! I suppose they could just go to the Science Museum in London and borrow Apollo 10 lunar lander which is there. It really can't be done. What I liked from First Man is that before take off, the astronauts have about 10 people making sure their spacesuit is on correctly, when they got to the moon in the tiniest of spaces they had to put on their spacesuit themselves. Remember if they made a mistake they would die.
Farage on Newsnight says we must leave the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union, says Norway and Switzerland are 'tiddly little countries' with their own arrangements and the Tories must get rid of May as soon as possible after she concedes again on a longer transition period in return for a minor concession on the Irish border
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
The other piece of transportation tech dating from 1969, was of course Concorde. Will there ever be another supersonic airliner?
There definitely could be another Concorde, the technology is there, but there is just not the demand for one, compare the Dreamliner to a 707, technology in planes has moved on massively, even Concorde had regular updates. My point is that the technology no longer exists to send a man to the moon and bring them back. Remember in 1971 America sent an electric car to the moon, an electric car in 1971!
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?
They presumably are at their wits end and wondered if it would help the PM.
It would help the PM, as well as themselves and the European economy, if they'd stop faffing around and start actually negotiating the future relationship, rather than stalling on totally artificial obstacles.
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
Of course it can be done - but consider that at the height of the Apollo program, it was costing the US the equivalent of $80bn a year. Give SpaceX that kind of cash, and they’d be there in 3 years, tops.
It really can't. The last time a human left the earth's orbit was in 1972, thing about that, for whatever reason in the last 46 years not a single human has left the earth's orbit. If it could be done now then China would have done it ,
Why would they? It could be done but for what purpose. Our voyages into space have become less so that we can and more for a mission. The proposals for future moon missions aren't just to go to the moon for the sake of it, it is either as a stepping stone to Mars or for human habitation. We could swiftly return to the moon if that was all we were trying to achieve but that doesn't give any meaningful returns on investment.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?
They presumably are at their wits end and wondered if it would help the PM.
Probably, in fairness. But it doesn’t.
Both the U.K. and EU are pretty clueless about each other.
To be a bit more explicit, I can see why business leaders would want a longer transition, and that there could be an argument for an extra transition year if it is thought that the time is needed to finalise the exact details of a trade deal. However, we haven't even started discussing those details, and they aren't the stumbling block at the moment, so it's bizarre to put this forward as some kind of way forward on the backstop issue.
The backstop comes into force at the end of the transition period if a final trade deal that solves the Irish border problem has not been completed.
Clearly, if there is any chance that a final trade deal would avoid the need for the backstop to come into effect, then providing more time for one to be negotiated makes the use of the backstop less likely.
What it doesn't do is address the (valid/paranoid) concerns of some that a backstop with no end date is an attempt to annex Northern Ireland. Perhaps some concerns are too (crazy/intractable) to address.
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.
China will send people to the moon. They have an active programme that is well on the way. They are cautious in their announcements but I would expect it within a decade.
On a slightly related note, Beijing built 21 underground lines totalling 600km between 2002 and 2017
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
You’re right as usual RN. It only makes things worse.
Not according to business and Barnier has said this evening they need more time to explore a UK wide customs union to overcome the Irish problem
How does adding an extra year to the transition period do either of those things?
The Irish problem is immediate, the third year gives business the time it needs to adapt to the new environment
But accepting a backstop doesn’t provide business with the certainty of knowing what comes next. Without a withdrawal agreement there will be no transition. The concept of a backstop must be abandoned for progress to be made.
1) She's an idiot/exhausted/given up caring and has no idea what she's proposed, why, and who it will enrage. 2) She knows that this will achieve nothing, but it's something to say, and kicking the can down the road is all she has left, however little sense it makes. 3) This is a ploy to force her party to VONC her, so she can win it, then capitulate totally to the EU before Christmas. 4) The EU is toying with her, and at this point she's too weak and terrified to even bother arguing 5) We're in the Full Retard timeline
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?
They presumably are at their wits end and wondered if it would help the PM.
People seem to have wildly different views on their motivations in that sphere, in the some insist the EU are suggesting various thinks to help her, others think they are trying to box her in so she has to cave in and offer referendums or go for a new GE.
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
Quite. As someone else has said, it's just another year of doubt and uncertainty, with the same pain at the end anyway. It's worse.
No Deal is better than this.
If we compare Brexit to coming off heroin (and there are odd parallels, and I was once a heroin addict) then this transition period is like going onto methadone, which makes you slightly dopey and slow and addicted to methadone, but is supposedly good, because it gets you off heroin.
However you lose the rush and fun of heroin, and you do not regain the clarity and drive of being totally clean. And then you have to quit methadone anyway, at the end, and that's not fun.
So TMay wants to move us from heroin to methadone, and she's now proposed we stay on methadone an extra year, as if that's a good thing. Why?
I am beginning to think we have to do this cold turkey. Lock ourselves indoors with a load of Valium, booze, a puke bucket, some porn and a couple of DVD box sets, and just sweat out the pain and anguish. It will hurt, a lot, but you get clean quick, and life can start again much faster.
I think we will end up in a near permanent transition, in the Single Market and Customs Union for years but still technically outside the EU but for most purposes still inside it and only the whole UK staying in the Single Market and Customs Union will avoid a hard border in Ireland and appease the DUP.
There is now no majority in Parliament for anything else
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?
They presumably are at their wits end and wondered if it would help the PM.
People seem to have wildly different views on their motivations in that sphere, in the some insist the EU are suggesting various thinks to help her, others think they are trying to box her in so she has to cave in and offer referendums or go for a new GE.
I see little evidence to assume the EU27 are in any mood at all to take pity on May. Why would they?
1) She's an idiot/exhausted/given up caring and has no idea what she's proposed, why, and who it will enrage. 2) She knows that this will achieve nothing, but it's something to say, and kicking the can down the road is all she has left, however little sense it makes. 3) This is a ploy to force her party to VONC her, so she can win it, then capitulate totally to the EU before Christmas. 4) The EU is toying with her, and at this point she's too weak and terrified to even bother arguing 5) We're in the Full Retard timeline
My money is on two. I don't doubt she is frustrated enough to not mind if there is a VONC, but I don't think she'd deliberately provoke on for the reason she could not be sure how badly she would provoke all the other MPs to the point she would not win it.
Ken Clarke now on Newsnight says UK government must commit to never have a hard border in Ireland to respect the GFA
They have. On our side.
It’s the EU that will tell the Irish to build one in a no deal scenario. But I suspect in that case the technology would not then dismissed as “magical thinking”. Which would be ironic.
Comments
Or, Remainers accepting defeat.
I’ll give you a clue. Accepting defeat is more likely to get through Parliament. At every point so far, Remainers in the HoC have lost or surrendered. Apart from a single process point which has been nullified by the sounds of it.
The computers in our cars are more advanced than those that took men to the moon. The technology to go to the moon is there, better than it was 50 years ago - it's just that going for the sake of going lost its appeal. When we return to the moon - and we will - it will be for more of a purpose.
A non starter. As I’m sure you know.
She’ll probably lose a vote. But if she wins on say 60% she won’t be able to progress legislatipnwithout those who voted against her.
Here’s a clue. If she was convinced she’d win, she’d have egged the letter writers on...
-------------
New words by Sunil, original music by Marc Almond & Dave Ball.
Friday morning going slow
I'm watching the election show
Lots of Ladbrokes slips on the floor
Memories of the night before
Out knocking up and having fun
Now I've stopped reading The Sun
Waiting for the results to show
But why I voted no one knows
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
I think it's time to write a thread
To vent the bemusement in my head
Spent my money on online bookies
Got nowt here but all the cookies
Clean my suit and my rosette
Election promises to forget
Start campaigning all over again
Kid myself I'm having fun
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
Looking out from my worldview
I've really nothing else to do
Seems like I have started fretting
Let's read Political Betting
Forget The Mirror and The Times
The battle bus with such great lines
Look around and I can see
A thousand punters just like me
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
(I'm waiting for Brexit
Or am I wasting time)
No need to call us out.
Ultimately we need either partition or a Brexit acceptable to the majority of both Remainers and Leavers. No sign of the latter.
Note that I currently live on the wrong side of those borders, although Leicester voted Remain.
So my first instinct would be that it is yet another Brexit skirmish along familiar lines, perhaps dragging in a few non-regular combatants due to the issue but ultimately just part of the same old issue that they parked before.
May truly is a political genius.
In Westminster your party even thinks Brexit is more important than calling out a Speaker complicit in a culture of abuse and intimidation against women clerks!
Did you ever think you would see the day the Labour Party would sink so low Dr Plamer?
Even if a challenge now is no more successful than Sir Anthony Meyer's challenge was in 1989 it won't prevent a more successful challenge next year. It's worth a shot.
Sorry, Theresa, but it is time for you to go.
Seems to me she's deceived everyone (remainers and leavers) these past two years and pissed everyone off...
The only thing they probably do all agree on is: #GetMayOut
Some of the technology was very rudimentary by modern standards. The Russian Space Museum in Moscow has a great display. I think that as a world we were far less safety conscious in those days.
Give SpaceX that kind of cash, and they’d be there in 3 years, tops.
- Brexiteers who don’t want a longer transition
- Remainers who thought the meaningful vote would allow them to stop Brexit.
That’s probably 48, y’know.
Yes, it’s been obvious that fanatics like you, and your brethren in Parliament, have been entirely unwilling to compromise for the past two years, and indeed have become seemingly more extreme every time something is suggested that might soften the outcome. It is a shame that outlandish solutions now must be considered. But there it is.
Incredibly, it seems 7 PMs served for less than a year. Around half have lasted less than 5 years. Tough gig.
Indeed if TM goes brexit will go with her
The vast majority of our party are Brexiteers.
The majority of the voters voted Leave.
Why should we be dominated by naysayers?
1) This proposed extra year of vassalage solves none of the outstanding issues; but,
2) it will almost certainly enrage her party to new heights of froth
Therefore we must conclude that she *intends* to be VONCed for this.
But still he ISS astronauts are effectively stranded right now !
The alternative to this fudge is not no deal. It is a different approach.
Only this time, to really hammer home that they're just *toying* with her, they've conned her into making a concession that they don't care about, and achieves nothing useful, but will further drive a wedge between her and what remains of her authority.
Another extension!
BINO.
The demand is there, but noise regulations over land have made it impractical until recently (sonic boom reducing designs have been developed).
We should see a supersonic business jet in around five years:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2018/10/15/ge-reveals-engine-that-could-make-aerions-ambitious-supersonic-business-jet-take-flight/
With something larger to follow on.
Both the U.K. and EU are pretty clueless about each other.
But that’s why we are here.
Clearly, if there is any chance that a final trade deal would avoid the need for the backstop to come into effect, then providing more time for one to be negotiated makes the use of the backstop less likely.
What it doesn't do is address the (valid/paranoid) concerns of some that a backstop with no end date is an attempt to annex Northern Ireland. Perhaps some concerns are too (crazy/intractable) to address.
Without a withdrawal agreement there will be no transition.
The concept of a backstop must be abandoned for progress to be made.
1) She's an idiot/exhausted/given up caring and has no idea what she's proposed, why, and who it will enrage.
2) She knows that this will achieve nothing, but it's something to say, and kicking the can down the road is all she has left, however little sense it makes.
3) This is a ploy to force her party to VONC her, so she can win it, then capitulate totally to the EU before Christmas.
4) The EU is toying with her, and at this point she's too weak and terrified to even bother arguing
5) We're in the Full Retard timeline
There is now no majority in Parliament for anything else
What about the end of Chequers? It has been rejected by everyone...
It’s the EU that will tell the Irish to build one in a no deal scenario. But I suspect in that case the technology would not then dismissed as “magical thinking”. Which would be ironic.