I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
It is actually saying: "Insure my house or I will burn it down myself and stay inside while I do it."
Isn't the top left picture from the 2015 general election?
Any old propaganda will do to have a shot at Scotland for Carlotta.
2015 is pre Brexit.
does not make a blind bit of difference to fact that morons on here are trying to say that Scottish Independence supporters are responsible for nutjob English Nationalists threatening to rape MP's. Can they go any lower, is it any wonder the troubles there are in England at present.
Pretty sure no one is saying that, Mr Straw man....
It's that good old Scottish "Civic Nationalism" (sic)
Lady Haw Haw trying to justify the propaganda. CCHQ are really struggling.
As an example, I don't know how local Government is funded by central Government - is it an annual or a monthly or even weekly grant or allowance? If the supply of central funding to local Government were removed, a lot of Councils would be in immediate financial trouble.
Presumably the same would be true of Academies and the NHS so I can't quite see what the Morgan-Cooper measure is supposed to do. In the US, public servants aren't paid in the event of a shutdown - are we suggesting civil servants shouldn't be paid if they continue to work?
I can see that doing Remainers' cause a lot of good.
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
It is actually saying: "Insure my house or I will burn it down myself and stay inside while I do it."
Agreed. That is what Varadkar is saying.
Indeed. The UK gets no cover from the "backstop insurance policy". Tis a creation of the EU.
Calling the voters stupid enough to have voted the way they did, is generally not a successful strategy.
Too many people *want* to see chaos, because either they think it will vindicate their earlier position or because they think it will sell newspapers. That’s a big problem.
I did not call the voters stupid. I said the chaos will be due to Brexit, unless you are stupid enough to believe that anyone could have met the promises of both leave campaigns. And IMO you have to be genuinely stupid to believe that.
In fact, May's deal is a reasonable attempt at doing exactly that: but not enough for the hardcore Brexiteers, because they are unreasonable. Which is why it's failing.
No-one else - not even the Brexiteer geniuses - could have done better. And that's often because they don't want a deal. They want chaos; or at least are willing to see the country suffer chaos to get what they want.
They're shits who should be nowhere near politics.
It's unreasonable due to the backstop. Drop the backstop and it would be reasonable.
Firstly, the backstop exists for a reason, and wishing it away is rather silly. It's a shame that Brexiteers did not address the Irish border issue before the referendum, but I guess they just wanted to win, whatever the cost.
Secondly, I get the impression that many of the people who wail about the backstop would just complain about something else if it did not exist.
There are probably 35 or so Conservative MPs who are opposed to any deal in principle with the EU. They see the organisation as Satanic, and one cannot strike bargains with Satan.
https://www.bayoubrief.com/2018/07/30/the-red-pelican/ Two months later, Eric Dubelier, an attorney originally from New Orleans (with three degrees from Tulane and a notorious record in the 1980s as a prosecutor under former Orleans Parish District Attorney Harry Connick, Sr.), plunged headfirst into the footnotes of American history: He decided to represent Concord Management and Consulting LLC, one of the three Russian-linked companies charged in Mueller’s indictment (and the only company with American legal counsel).
Two days after Dubelier’s involvement made news, Sen. John Neely Kennedy, also a Republican from Louisiana, demanded that Mueller end his investigation completely because it “distracts in time, energy and taxpayer money.” (This year, by the way, Sen. Kennedy spent the Fourth of July in Russia, ostensibly to help lay the diplomatic groundwork for what ended up being a disastrous meeting in Helsinki between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump).
Six Degrees of Louisiana is a game I play on practically every story, and I also know that practically every story about a conspiracy between Russia and President Trump carries with it a stocked arsenal of ancillary conspiracies.
Still, it’s impossible to ignore the multiple connections between Louisiana, a state of only 4.7 million people, and the elaborate infrastructure allegedly established by the Russian government to help elect Donald Trump as President. The real question is: Why Louisiana?...
Isn't the top left picture from the 2015 general election?
Any old propaganda will do to have a shot at Scotland for Carlotta.
2015 is pre Brexit.
does not make a blind bit of difference to fact that morons on here are trying to say that Scottish Independence supporters are responsible for nutjob English Nationalists threatening to rape MP's. Can they go any lower, is it any wonder the troubles there are in England at present.
Pretty sure no one is saying that, Mr Straw man....
Of course not.
'Mob behaviour was tolerated during the Scottish referendum and others learned from the example.'
Yes and pushed by right wing , Scottish grudge holding PB Tory, taken up by others. Fact that it is a total lie is neither here nor there either.
Morning Malc.
Morning GIN, the nutters are getting nuttier and even bigger whoppers than usual are flying about as they try to justify their mental actions.
* Traitor * Nazi * Enemy of the people There is no difference. Each is violent, intimidatory and designed to trigger the same emotion: hate. The response of some haters will be violent, even murderous. Anyone who uses or condones such terms owns what happens next.
It is also a fact that far left mobs have been gobbing at people they do not like, and shouting in their faces, for years. They behave in exactly the same ways as the right wing scum we saw yesterday. If you do not condemn it all, you are a hypocrite. No ifs, no buts.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
What this misses is that the current deal is the easy part, that's designed to be easy for the British to swallow. They want the essential stuff locked in before they get to the contentious discussions in the next stage, which will involve lots of visible, practical concessions that will make it obvious how hard the UK is getting pwned, and won't have much give on the EU side because it'll need to be agreed by all member states.
Isn't the top left picture from the 2015 general election?
Any old propaganda will do to have a shot at Scotland for Carlotta.
2015 is pre Brexit.
does not make a blind bit of difference to fact that morons on here are trying to say that Scottish Independence supporters are responsible for nutjob English Nationalists threatening to rape MP's. Can they go any lower, is it any wonder the troubles there are in England at present.
Pretty sure no one is saying that, Mr Straw man....
Of course not.
'Mob behaviour was tolerated during the Scottish referendum and others learned from the example.'
Yes and pushed by right wing , Scottish grudge holding PB Tory, taken up by others. Fact that it is a total lie is neither here nor there either.
Morning Malc.
Morning GIN, the nutters are getting nuttier and even bigger whoppers than usual are flying about as they try to justify their mental actions.
Things seem to be getting very nasty in Westminster at the moment. I might have to claim asylum in Scotland at this rate.
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
It is actually saying: "Insure my house or I will burn it down myself and stay inside while I do it."
Agreed. That is what Varadkar is saying.
Indeed. The UK gets no cover from the "backstop insurance policy". Tis a creation of the EU.
The UK avoids a hard border. That's a lot of cover.
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
It is actually saying: "Insure my house or I will burn it down myself and stay inside while I do it."
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
It is actually saying: "Insure my house or I will burn it down myself and stay inside while I do it."
Agreed. That is what Varadkar is saying.
And hence the UK will insure the house.
Or we won't and Varadkar will burn. It will be unpleasant and unfortunate but we remain open to an equitable alternative.
Alex Salmond's legal challenge over how the Scottish government handled sexual harassment allegations against him is to be called for an unexpected hearing.
The former first minister has sought a judicial review of how the government investigated two misconduct complaints against him, which he denies.
A four-day hearing had been due to start on 15 January, but the Court of Session will now also sit on Tuesday.
Lord Pentland is back to conclude the case - parties agree that the probe into Alex Salmond was unfair and unlawful. Investigation reports are struck down, but he doesn’t deem that they need to be handed over. The two sides have also come to an agreement about expenses. Expenses awarded to Alex Salmond.
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
It is actually saying: "Insure my house or I will burn it down myself and stay inside while I do it."
Agreed. That is what Varadkar is saying.
Indeed. The UK gets no cover from the "backstop insurance policy". Tis a creation of the EU.
The UK avoids a hard border. That's a lot of cover.
Not enough.
Which is reasonable as the EU avoids a hard border by signing a withdrawal agreement without a backstop but that seems to not be enough for them either.
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
It is actually saying: "Insure my house or I will burn it down myself and stay inside while I do it."
Agreed. That is what Varadkar is saying.
And hence the UK will insure the house.
Or we won't and Varadkar will burn. It will be unpleasant and unfortunate but we remain open to an equitable alternative.
We can't. We can't let it burn and it's not such a bad analogy. Because guess what? He lives in a terraced house and our house is next door and our partition wall is made of dry straw and kindling.
Alex Salmond's legal challenge over how the Scottish government handled sexual harassment allegations against him is to be called for an unexpected hearing.
The former first minister has sought a judicial review of how the government investigated two misconduct complaints against him, which he denies.
A four-day hearing had been due to start on 15 January, but the Court of Session will now also sit on Tuesday.
Lord Pentland is back to conclude the case - parties agree that the probe into Alex Salmond was unfair and unlawful. Investigation reports are struck down, but he doesn’t deem that they need to be handed over. The two sides have also come to an agreement about expenses. Expenses awarded to Alex Salmond.
Because the Scottish government mishandled the case. Not because of the guilt or innocence of the accused who has faced a travesty of justice by the Scottish government's incompetence.
As an example, I don't know how local Government is funded by central Government - is it an annual or a monthly or even weekly grant or allowance? If the supply of central funding to local Government were removed, a lot of Councils would be in immediate financial trouble.
Presumably the same would be true of Academies and the NHS so I can't quite see what the Morgan-Cooper measure is supposed to do. In the US, public servants aren't paid in the event of a shutdown - are we suggesting civil servants shouldn't be paid if they continue to work?
I can see that doing Remainers' cause a lot of good.
Myself (and others) have said before that the one certainty among all the unpredictability of the next few weeks, is that at some point in the process John Bercow is going to make a massive arse of himself.
Calling a bunch of wrecking amendments to vital legislation, in an attempt to force a complete crash-out, would be a great example of this.
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
It is actually saying: "Insure my house or I will burn it down myself and stay inside while I do it."
Agreed. That is what Varadkar is saying.
And hence the UK will insure the house.
Or we won't and Varadkar will burn. It will be unpleasant and unfortunate but we remain open to an equitable alternative.
We can't. We can't let it burn and it's not such a bad analogy. Because guess what? He lives in a terraced house and our house is next door and our partition wall is made of dry straw and kindling.
Or we can. It depends upon your priorities.
I don't want the government to surrender to blackmail or terrorism. We have a fair alternative ready.
It's curious but some seem to think a Blair-like figure could never win over here - I profoundly disagree, the first sensible centrist (and that means acknowledging the causes of populism while criticising the remedies of the populists themselves) is going to sweep the board whatever Party they are in.
Yes, tough on populism, tough on the causes of populism. That is what we need. It's the second bit that is difficult because it depends on the answer to a difficult question. Is the main cause to be found in matters of identity & culture or of economic opportunity?
It's curious but some seem to think a Blair-like figure could never win over here - I profoundly disagree, the first sensible centrist (and that means acknowledging the causes of populism while criticising the remedies of the populists themselves) is going to sweep the board whatever Party they are in.
Yes, tough on populism, tough on the causes of populism. That is what we need. It's the second bit that is difficult because it depends on the answer to a difficult question. Is the main cause to be found in matters of identity & culture or of economic opportunity?
Perhaps there is no (or very little) centre ground in this country,.
I don't want the government to surrender to blackmail or terrorism. We have a fair alternative ready.
No UK government is going to take the chance that there can be a resurgence of The Troubles.
But we are close at hand now - let's see what happens. How about we have a £10 bet proceeds to charity that there will be an NI backstop in a deal which is concluded with the EU this year?
Former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has won his judicial review over the process of a Scottish government investigation into sexual harassment complaints made against him
I don't want the government to surrender to blackmail or terrorism. We have a fair alternative ready.
No UK government is going to take the chance that there can be a resurgence of The Troubles.
That's the other thing that's puzzling about all this. The backstop is to insure against something happening that everyone would avoid like the plague anyway.
Did it suggest that the campaigners actually believed this, or were they just feeding any old crap to witless dupes to get themselves over the line?
The latter.
Little sense that a desire to reduce inequality between affluent and deprived areas of the country burns deep in the belly of the leading lights in the Leave campaign.
I don't want the government to surrender to blackmail or terrorism. We have a fair alternative ready.
No UK government is going to take the chance that there can be a resurgence of The Troubles.
That's the other thing that's puzzling about all this. The backstop is to insure against something happening that everyone would avoid like the plague anyway.
Everyone is arguing against something that no one wants. Everyone agrees. But as they say "events" (ie a WTO MFN dispute) might lead to just what everyone doesn't want. And hence the backstop.
Alex Salmond's legal challenge over how the Scottish government handled sexual harassment allegations against him is to be called for an unexpected hearing.
The former first minister has sought a judicial review of how the government investigated two misconduct complaints against him, which he denies.
A four-day hearing had been due to start on 15 January, but the Court of Session will now also sit on Tuesday.
Lord Pentland is back to conclude the case - parties agree that the probe into Alex Salmond was unfair and unlawful. Investigation reports are struck down, but he doesn’t deem that they need to be handed over. The two sides have also come to an agreement about expenses. Expenses awarded to Alex Salmond.
Because the Scottish government mishandled the case. Not because of the guilt or innocence of the accused who has faced a travesty of justice by the Scottish government's incompetence.
Carlotta's little helper trying to hold the CCHQ line despite having had their noses rubbed in it. Dear Dear.
PS: Complete silence on that police enquiry, they are not getting very far.
Former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has won his judicial review over the process of a Scottish government investigation into sexual harassment complaints made against him
ho ho ho
Scottish Govt Permanent Secretary apologises after conceding court case. Could cost half a million in legal fees
I don't want the government to surrender to blackmail or terrorism. We have a fair alternative ready.
No UK government is going to take the chance that there can be a resurgence of The Troubles.
But we are close at hand now - let's see what happens. How about we have a £10 bet proceeds to charity that there will be an NI backstop in a deal which is concluded with the EU this year?
I don't think there should be but that doesn't meant there won't be.
But for charity I'm prepared to agree to it on one proviso. I've always said there will be some face saving fudge to allow the Irish to back down. So how about this? If the withdrawal agreement is passed as is without any *legally binding* changes as the EU insists must happen then I pay £10 to charity of your choice. If there are legally binding changes as the EU insists can't happen or no agreement at all (extremely unlikely) you pay £10 to charity of my choice. Non legally binding assurances alone as May is currently seeking would mean you win.
Former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has won his judicial review over the process of a Scottish government investigation into sexual harassment complaints made against him
ho ho ho
Scottish Govt Permanent Secretary apologises after conceding court case. Could cost half a million in legal fees
On the basis of the tweets emerging from the Court of Session, the Scottish Government has conceded there was apparent bias on the part of the investigating officer involved in the Salmond complaints. This outcome leaves other issues about the process - legally - unresolved.
I don't want the government to surrender to blackmail or terrorism. We have a fair alternative ready.
No UK government is going to take the chance that there can be a resurgence of The Troubles.
That's the other thing that's puzzling about all this. The backstop is to insure against something happening that everyone would avoid like the plague anyway.
Everyone is arguing against something that no one wants. Everyone agrees. But as they say "events" (ie a WTO MFN dispute) might lead to just what everyone doesn't want. And hence the backstop.
Yes. But the fact that everyone would avoid it happening like the plague must make it very unlikely. So we end up jeopardising any agreement at all in order to insure against something that's very unlikely to happen. Surely getting into that position must be the result of a huge miscalculation, and the inability to get out of it is also pointing to something seriously awry.
The UK avoids a hard border. That's a lot of cover.
It doesn't, it avoids a hard border during the transition period. But then the transition period will end, and at that point:
1) Nobody knows if the UK will be able to agree to a coherent approach on the border that actually makes practical sense and doesn't involve to vague hand-waving about blockchains or whatever.
2) Even if they can, nobody knows if the EU side will be able to pass it, or if somebody will veto it.
Hence their insistence on nailing down their member's essential interests now, before they get to the difficult part of the negotiations.
Christophe Dettinger, the former french heavyweight champion arrestted for whacking gendarmes at a yellow vest protest on saturday has collecred 110,000 euros within 24 hours via crowd funding for his defence.
Perhaps there is no (or very little) centre ground in this country.
Well 'centre ground' is a leading term.
IMO it means mainly market but mixed economy with strong regulation, high tax & spend, live and let live social policy, internationalist outlook, relatively open borders.
But is that not just me defining what I support as being moderate and hellishly reasonable?
Quite a good "The long view" on R4 this morning comparing Brexit (there really is no escape) to the travails of the Tories under Balfour trying to deal with tariff reform. Unlike some of the programs where the comparison seems somewhat contrived this worked surprisingly well. Worth a listen despite the B word.
Couldn't bring myself to watch the film last night but probably will at some point.
Hague in the Telegraph today makes the case for May's deal well, not least because he shows some clear sympathy with the concerns of the no dealers. Will it have any effect? Not if you read JRM right below him. As in 1905 it is increasingly hard to see the Tory party in its current form surviving this. Given the alternatives available that is somewhat unfortunate.
Former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has won his judicial review over the process of a Scottish government investigation into sexual harassment complaints made against him
ho ho ho
Speaking to one of the counsel involved the Scottish Government put up the white flag at the start of the hearing. The investigation will now have to be revisited.
What many of you will not realise is that outside the M25 just how much the rest of the country is increasingly loathing London, Londoners and the London-centric attitude.
The rest of the country doesn't hate London enough to give it back the money it gets from London.
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
EU overreach. They had the stronger hand but have underestimated how much the commons can accept no matter how dire the consequence.
Morning all and apologies for ignoring the thread which is a good one.
Firstly sorry I missed both Alistair's EU thread and Mike's GE threads yesterday. Not often I say it but I agreed with much of what both wrote and interesting others are seeing what I have suggested for several months, that Theresa may get her deal through on the back of Labour abstentions.
I was sorry to see Anna Soubry jostled yesterday in the way she was but Anna is a tough old bird and handled much worse. However MPs better get ready for a lot more of such behaviour if they think they can thwart the wishes of 17.4 million voters! As I said last week, the yellow vest protests in France would be a kiddies party in comparison to what might happen here.
What many of you will not realise is that outside the M25 just how much the rest of the country is increasingly loathing London, Londoners and the London-centric attitude. If you take London out of the 2016 result, England voted heavily for Brexit and London politicians and journalists should not forget that. Similarly in Scotland while the cities swung the vote heavily in favour of remaining, many rural communities are staunch supporters of Brexit and the fishing community, while small in absolute numbers is a powerful group never the less. The British love our fish and chips more than we love London bankers (and everything which rhymes with that)!
I don't like Theresa's May's deal but as she keeps repeating it is the only deal. I hope she succeeds because if she doesn't, I doubt the UK will survive. There could well be a growing call to get rid of Ulster and of course get rid of we Scots. English nationalism could be the big winner from the current chaos caused by MPs who cannot accept they are there to do what the voters tell them to do, not what they want to do!
Agree with the sentiment, although the last sentence is WRONG. We do NOT elect delegates, to vote as their constituents wish. We elect people to become informed and use their best judgement on the information presented to them. We might not agree with them, but we must then use persuasion to get them to accept our views.
And I write as a Lib/Lab/LD voter who has, IIRC voted for a winning Parliamentary candidate on two occasions out of the 16 GE's since I've been old enough to vote. And I've voted every time!
We elect them to take decisions - something they are notably failing to do right now.
Now there I agree with you! Agree or not, I would hate it if 'my' MP' abstained!
It would be unacceptable. You cannot take no stance on this.
Alex Salmond's legal challenge over how the Scottish government handled sexual harassment allegations against him is to be called for an unexpected hearing.
The former first minister has sought a judicial review of how the government investigated two misconduct complaints against him, which he denies.
A four-day hearing had been due to start on 15 January, but the Court of Session will now also sit on Tuesday.
Lord Pentland is back to conclude the case - parties agree that the probe into Alex Salmond was unfair and unlawful. Investigation reports are struck down, but he doesn’t deem that they need to be handed over. The two sides have also come to an agreement about expenses. Expenses awarded to Alex Salmond.
I would have thought everyone would be disappointed that the Scottish government was incompetent in handling the case?
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
It is actually saying: "Insure my house or I will burn it down myself and stay inside while I do it."
Agreed. That is what Varadkar is saying.
And hence the UK will insure the house.
That's the gamble. It might fail and it was a needless gamble.
On the basis of the tweets emerging from the Court of Session, the Scottish Government has conceded there was apparent bias on the part of the investigating officer involved in the Salmond complaints. This outcome leaves other issues about the process - legally - unresolved.
How silly a thing to do. Surely someone with no actual, apparent or even potential bias could have been found?
Does anyone with any on owledge of the details of the WA know if there is any truth to the stories of TM selling out on our defence and intelligence services being subservient to the EU. If so this seems to have slipped the attention of the main stream media
The is no "subservient" relationship but British participation in the current co-operative structures (EUMS, Anglo-French CJEF, etc) will continue largely unchanged. To do otherwise would cost a lot of money and tories despise spending money on defence unless its subsidising BAE sales in the Middle East - eg XII(B) squadron conjured up from thin air to train Qataris.
I didn't like the way that she was harassed by those idiots yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I didn't see any physical contact. Some numpty in a red cap tried to block her path at the Commons entrance, but he got jostled out of the way by others.
If the Met do decide that a crime was committed just due to the verbal abuse, then I hope there are plenty of spare cells in Manchester for the end of September.
I didn't like the way that she was harassed by those idiots yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I didn't see any physical contact. Some numpty in a red cap tried to block her path at the Commons entrance, but he got jostled out of the way by others.
If the Met do decide that a crime was committed just due to the verbal abuse, then I hope there are plenty of spare cells in Manchester for the end of September.
Indeed. Do the right thing once and they might have to do it all the time.
What many of you will not realise is that outside the M25 just how much the rest of the country is increasingly loathing London, Londoners and the London-centric attitude.
The rest of the country doesn't hate London enough to give it back the money it gets from London.
I don't want the government to surrender to blackmail or terrorism. We have a fair alternative ready.
No UK government is going to take the chance that there can be a resurgence of The Troubles.
But we are close at hand now - let's see what happens. How about we have a £10 bet proceeds to charity that there will be an NI backstop in a deal which is concluded with the EU this year?
I don't think there should be but that doesn't meant there won't be.
But for charity I'm prepared to agree to it on one proviso. I've always said there will be some face saving fudge to allow the Irish to back down. So how about this? If the withdrawal agreement is passed as is without any *legally binding* changes as the EU insists must happen then I pay £10 to charity of your choice. If there are legally binding changes as the EU insists can't happen or no agreement at all (extremely unlikely) you pay £10 to charity of my choice. Non legally binding assurances alone as May is currently seeking would mean you win.
I didn't like the way that she was harassed by those idiots yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I didn't see any physical contact. Some numpty in a red cap tried to block her path at the Commons entrance, but he got jostled out of the way by others.
If the Met do decide that a crime was committed just due to the verbal abuse, then I hope there are plenty of spare cells in Manchester for the end of September.
There is another issue: the safety of MPs and their staff. We recently had an MP assassinated, and a terrorist attack outside parliament. The guys protesting are nutters, and one might have a knife or other weapon - or someone with evil intent might use them as cover.
I'd have expected the police to have reacted in a slightly stronger manner than they did. Or at all.
I didn't like the way that she was harassed by those idiots yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I didn't see any physical contact. Some numpty in a red cap tried to block her path at the Commons entrance, but he got jostled out of the way by others.
If the Met do decide that a crime was committed just due to the verbal abuse, then I hope there are plenty of spare cells in Manchester for the end of September.
Yes indeed. Some may want to reconsider if they want calling a Tory a Nazi to be a criminal offence.
Maybe we can see some justice for those erecting gallows in Manchester etc now?
I didn't like the way that she was harassed by those idiots yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I didn't see any physical contact. Some numpty in a red cap tried to block her path at the Commons entrance, but he got jostled out of the way by others.
If the Met do decide that a crime was committed just due to the verbal abuse, then I hope there are plenty of spare cells in Manchester for the end of September.
There is another issue: the safety of MPs and their staff. We recently had an MP assassinated, and a terrorist attack outside parliament. The guys protesting are nutters, and one might have a knife or other weapon - or someone with evil intent might use them as cover.
I'd have expected the police to have reacted in a slightly stronger manner than they did. Or at all.
That's the worry. It would be very easy to stab an MP in that situation.
I didn't like the way that she was harassed by those idiots yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I didn't see any physical contact. Some numpty in a red cap tried to block her path at the Commons entrance, but he got jostled out of the way by others.
If the Met do decide that a crime was committed just due to the verbal abuse, then I hope there are plenty of spare cells in Manchester for the end of September.
Yes indeed. Some may want to reconsider if they want calling a Tory a Nazi to be a criminal offence.
Maybe we can see some justice for those erecting gallows in Manchester etc now?
Indeed. If calling someone a Nazi (and similar) is made to be a serious concern, then the police would have to take a much harder line on many protests by the left..
It seems to me that it dictates a very 'soft' Brexit, with these caveats:
- Unless we can accept major customs & regulatory differences between NI and ROUK. - Or unless there really is viable technology to render a border in Ireland invisible.
Is that not why 'hard' Brexit supporters hate it? Because it makes their preferred outcome to the FTA talks that much less likely?
Mr. Jessop, they didn't when a mob assembled outside Mogg's house.
Two wrongs do not make a right. But anyway, the situations are different: there are loads of police around parliament at all times; there are probably not that many outside Mogg's house as standard to intervene.
Mr. Jessop, they didn't when a mob assembled outside Mogg's house.
Two wrongs do not make a right. But anyway, the situations are different: there are loads of police around parliament at all times; there are probably not that many outside Mogg's house as standard to intervene.
both issues are the same
the proponents have been filmed in flagrante delicto by major broadcasters. Any offence is on camera and the police can round the suspects up quite easily.
I don't want the government to surrender to blackmail or terrorism. We have a fair alternative ready.
No UK government is going to take the chance that there can be a resurgence of The Troubles.
That's the other thing that's puzzling about all this. The backstop is to insure against something happening that everyone would avoid like the plague anyway.
Everyone is arguing against something that no one wants. Everyone agrees. But as they say "events" (ie a WTO MFN dispute) might lead to just what everyone doesn't want. And hence the backstop.
Yes. But the fact that everyone would avoid it happening like the plague must make it very unlikely. So we end up jeopardising any agreement at all in order to insure against something that's very unlikely to happen. Surely getting into that position must be the result of a huge miscalculation, and the inability to get out of it is also pointing to something seriously awry.
No one wants it but under certain circumstances it could be out of their hands.
The UK avoids a hard border. That's a lot of cover.
It doesn't, it avoids a hard border during the transition period. But then the transition period will end, and at that point:
1) Nobody knows if the UK will be able to agree to a coherent approach on the border that actually makes practical sense and doesn't involve to vague hand-waving about blockchains or whatever.
2) Even if they can, nobody knows if the EU side will be able to pass it, or if somebody will veto it.
Hence their insistence on nailing down their member's essential interests now, before they get to the difficult part of the negotiations.
The whole point about the backstop is that it remains in place until all those tricky negotiations have been concluded.
The UK avoids a hard border. That's a lot of cover.
It doesn't, it avoids a hard border during the transition period. But then the transition period will end, and at that point:
1) Nobody knows if the UK will be able to agree to a coherent approach on the border that actually makes practical sense and doesn't involve to vague hand-waving about blockchains or whatever.
2) Even if they can, nobody knows if the EU side will be able to pass it, or if somebody will veto it.
Hence their insistence on nailing down their member's essential interests now, before they get to the difficult part of the negotiations.
The whole point about the backstop is that it remains in place until all those tricky negotiations have been concluded.
The point of the backstop is to ensure the UK remains bent over a barrel for As Long As It Takes for the UK to fully align with the EU's every demand.
Quite a good "The long view" on R4 this morning comparing Brexit (there really is no escape) to the travails of the Tories under Balfour trying to deal with tariff reform. Unlike some of the programs where the comparison seems somewhat contrived this worked surprisingly well. Worth a listen despite the B word.
Couldn't bring myself to watch the film last night but probably will at some point.
Hague in the Telegraph today makes the case for May's deal well, not least because he shows some clear sympathy with the concerns of the no dealers. Will it have any effect? Not if you read JRM right below him. As in 1905 it is increasingly hard to see the Tory party in its current form surviving this. Given the alternatives available that is somewhat unfortunate.
Unless Corbyn backs EUref2 and a Remain option it is also hard to see the Labour party surviving in its current form and that still leaves the problem of Labour Leavers
We used to be a nation that would mobilise entire nations to stop the spread of the far right.
The Battle of Cable Street was a shining example of the UK's long and proud heritage in driving extremist thugs from our streets.
Now look at us. They operate openly in Parliament Square and even the police do nothing.
Sad what we're reduced to as a nation.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. but this has to reflect behaviour by everyone. There should be a code of conduct of debate and protest which is drawn up by politicans, people an dpolice so everyone knows what is accpetable and what isn't and that is policed rigorously.
We used to be a nation that would mobilise entire nations to stop the spread of the far right.
The Battle of Cable Street was a shining example of the UK's long and proud heritage in driving extremist thugs from our streets.
Now look at us. They operate openly in Parliament Square and even the police do nothing.
Sad what we're reduced to as a nation.
There is absolutely no difference between what these morons were doing and what the morons from the left have been doing for decades. Both are extremists and both should be treated in the same way.
It looks to me personally like a line was crossed by the protestors yesterday - that of instilling fear for their safety in their target - just as the same lines have been crossed many times in recent years by other protestors, primarily from the left. That is not a reason to stop the police taking action. It is a reason to call out those now demanding action who were happy enough to stay silent during previous examples because they happened to be on the same side of the political seesaw.
If we have been in any way reduced as a nation it is because people like you excused such behaviour in the past.
The UK avoids a hard border. That's a lot of cover.
It doesn't, it avoids a hard border during the transition period. But then the transition period will end, and at that point:
1) Nobody knows if the UK will be able to agree to a coherent approach on the border that actually makes practical sense and doesn't involve to vague hand-waving about blockchains or whatever.
2) Even if they can, nobody knows if the EU side will be able to pass it, or if somebody will veto it.
Hence their insistence on nailing down their member's essential interests now, before they get to the difficult part of the negotiations.
The whole point about the backstop is that it remains in place until all those tricky negotiations have been concluded.
The point of the backstop is to ensure the UK remains bent over a barrel for As Long As It Takes for the UK to fully align with the EU's every demand.
This is what happens when people stop punching the far right.
Ah, incitement to violence. A typical response from the left.
I'm not of the left. Classical liberal viewpoint, that the paradox of tolerance is real. The only way to ensure a tolerant society is to be aggressively intolerant of intolerance.
The reason the far right now operate with impunity is precisely because we stopped punching them.
There's a fine line between protest and intimidation. These people crossed that line. They deserve to be dealt with, as with many others which do, and often don't.
I didn't like the way that she was harassed by those idiots yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I didn't see any physical contact. Some numpty in a red cap tried to block her path at the Commons entrance, but he got jostled out of the way by others.
If the Met do decide that a crime was committed just due to the verbal abuse, then I hope there are plenty of spare cells in Manchester for the end of September.
There is another issue: the safety of MPs and their staff. We recently had an MP assassinated, and a terrorist attack outside parliament. The guys protesting are nutters, and one might have a knife or other weapon - or someone with evil intent might use them as cover.
I'd have expected the police to have reacted in a slightly stronger manner than they did. Or at all.
Isn't the issue that the police in and around Parliament are there for security? Are they in a position to start arresting people for gobbing off at politicians? Or do they have to stay in position to deal with a potential terrorist attack?
MPs would probably be better to call the police and get a regular Met copper down to sort them out.
Former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has won his judicial review over the process of a Scottish government investigation into sexual harassment complaints made against him
ho ho ho
Scottish Govt Permanent Secretary apologises after conceding court case. Could cost half a million in legal fees
Extraordinary. From reading the article, there's clearly an attempt at moral equivalence and to portray the bovver boys in an - if not favourable - at least a neutral light.
The UK avoids a hard border. That's a lot of cover.
It doesn't, it avoids a hard border during the transition period. But then the transition period will end, and at that point:
1) Nobody knows if the UK will be able to agree to a coherent approach on the border that actually makes practical sense and doesn't involve to vague hand-waving about blockchains or whatever.
2) Even if they can, nobody knows if the EU side will be able to pass it, or if somebody will veto it.
Hence their insistence on nailing down their member's essential interests now, before they get to the difficult part of the negotiations.
The whole point about the backstop is that it remains in place until all those tricky negotiations have been concluded.
You mean until EU has fleeced the idiots and there is nothing left to be taken. It is unbelievable that anyone could have agreed to hand everything to the EU on a plate like that. Outcome will be worst trade deal in history or permanent limbo coughing up shedloads.
Comments
https://www.bayoubrief.com/2018/07/30/the-red-pelican/
Two months later, Eric Dubelier, an attorney originally from New Orleans (with three degrees from Tulane and a notorious record in the 1980s as a prosecutor under former Orleans Parish District Attorney Harry Connick, Sr.), plunged headfirst into the footnotes of American history: He decided to represent Concord Management and Consulting LLC, one of the three Russian-linked companies charged in Mueller’s indictment (and the only company with American legal counsel).
Two days after Dubelier’s involvement made news, Sen. John Neely Kennedy, also a Republican from Louisiana, demanded that Mueller end his investigation completely because it “distracts in time, energy and taxpayer money.” (This year, by the way, Sen. Kennedy spent the Fourth of July in Russia, ostensibly to help lay the diplomatic groundwork for what ended up being a disastrous meeting in Helsinki between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump).
Six Degrees of Louisiana is a game I play on practically every story, and I also know that practically every story about a conspiracy between Russia and President Trump carries with it a stocked arsenal of ancillary conspiracies.
Still, it’s impossible to ignore the multiple connections between Louisiana, a state of only 4.7 million people, and the elaborate infrastructure allegedly established by the Russian government to help elect Donald Trump as President. The real question is: Why Louisiana?...
Lord Pentland is back to conclude the case - parties agree that the probe into Alex Salmond was unfair and unlawful. Investigation reports are struck down, but he doesn’t deem that they need to be handed over. The two sides have also come to an agreement about expenses.
Expenses awarded to Alex Salmond.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/7/1824180/-Daily-Kos-Democratic-Straw-Poll-inaugural-edition
His initial selection leaves out KLOBUCHAR, but the top comment on the thread is the one that draws attention to this blunder.
Which is reasonable as the EU avoids a hard border by signing a withdrawal agreement without a backstop but that seems to not be enough for them either.
Well it takes two to tango.
Calling a bunch of wrecking amendments to vital legislation, in an attempt to force a complete crash-out, would be a great example of this.
I don't want the government to surrender to blackmail or terrorism. We have a fair alternative ready.
But we are close at hand now - let's see what happens. How about we have a £10 bet proceeds to charity that there will be an NI backstop in a deal which is concluded with the EU this year?
"Nuance?! We don't tolerate nuance here! You're a traitor, or you're not."
Sky News Breaking
Verified account @SkyNewsBreak
Former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has won his judicial review over the process of a Scottish government investigation into sexual harassment complaints made against him
ho ho ho
Little sense that a desire to reduce inequality between affluent and deprived areas of the country burns deep in the belly of the leading lights in the Leave campaign.
PS: Complete silence on that police enquiry, they are not getting very far.
But for charity I'm prepared to agree to it on one proviso. I've always said there will be some face saving fudge to allow the Irish to back down. So how about this? If the withdrawal agreement is passed as is without any *legally binding* changes as the EU insists must happen then I pay £10 to charity of your choice. If there are legally binding changes as the EU insists can't happen or no agreement at all (extremely unlikely) you pay £10 to charity of my choice. Non legally binding assurances alone as May is currently seeking would mean you win.
What do you think?
That said, my political list on Twitter is frequently testy, whereas my history list tends to be very civil.
1) Nobody knows if the UK will be able to agree to a coherent approach on the border that actually makes practical sense and doesn't involve to vague hand-waving about blockchains or whatever.
2) Even if they can, nobody knows if the EU side will be able to pass it, or if somebody will veto it.
Hence their insistence on nailing down their member's essential interests now, before they get to the difficult part of the negotiations.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2019/01/08/01016-20190108ARTFIG00059-le-succes-d-une-cagnotte-de-soutien-au-boxeur-christophe-dettinger-suscite-les-critiques.php
IMO it means mainly market but mixed economy with strong regulation, high tax & spend, live and let live social policy, internationalist outlook, relatively open borders.
But is that not just me defining what I support as being moderate and hellishly reasonable?
Couldn't bring myself to watch the film last night but probably will at some point.
Hague in the Telegraph today makes the case for May's deal well, not least because he shows some clear sympathy with the concerns of the no dealers. Will it have any effect? Not if you read JRM right below him. As in 1905 it is increasingly hard to see the Tory party in its current form surviving this. Given the alternatives available that is somewhat unfortunate.
abject humiliation for scottish govt
Aren't you?
I didn't like the way that she was harassed by those idiots yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I didn't see any physical contact. Some numpty in a red cap tried to block her path at the Commons entrance, but he got jostled out of the way by others.
If the Met do decide that a crime was committed just due to the verbal abuse, then I hope there are plenty of spare cells in Manchester for the end of September.
I'd have expected the police to have reacted in a slightly stronger manner than they did. Or at all.
Maybe we can see some justice for those erecting gallows in Manchester etc now?
It seems to me that it dictates a very 'soft' Brexit, with these caveats:
- Unless we can accept major customs & regulatory differences between NI and ROUK.
- Or unless there really is viable technology to render a border in Ireland invisible.
Is that not why 'hard' Brexit supporters hate it? Because it makes their preferred outcome to the FTA talks that much less likely?
German police have arrested a 20 year old for hacking the german parliament and releasing MPs data. His defence is he was pissed off with politicans,
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/tatverdaechtiger-nennt-aerger-ueber-politiker-als-motiv-15977887.html
the proponents have been filmed in flagrante delicto by major broadcasters. Any offence is on camera and the police can round the suspects up quite easily.
The Battle of Cable Street was a shining example of the UK's long and proud heritage in driving extremist thugs from our streets.
Now look at us. They operate openly in Parliament Square and even the police do nothing.
Sad what we're reduced to as a nation.
The whole point about the backstop is that it remains in place until all those tricky negotiations have been concluded.
It looks to me personally like a line was crossed by the protestors yesterday - that of instilling fear for their safety in their target - just as the same lines have been crossed many times in recent years by other protestors, primarily from the left. That is not a reason to stop the police taking action. It is a reason to call out those now demanding action who were happy enough to stay silent during previous examples because they happened to be on the same side of the political seesaw.
If we have been in any way reduced as a nation it is because people like you excused such behaviour in the past.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1082614488522809344
German far-right politician Frank Magnitz has been beaten up and severely injured in an attack seen by police as politically motivated.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46792556
The reason the far right now operate with impunity is precisely because we stopped punching them.
MPs would probably be better to call the police and get a regular Met copper down to sort them out.
"Who is Anna Soubry, what has she said about Brexit and who’s her partner Neil Davidson?" That's almost as weird, to be honest.
As is:
"Anna Mary Soubry is a 62-year-old who was born in Lincoln and brought up in Dunham-on-Trent and Clumber Park in Nottinghamshire.
She was born on November 7, 1962, in Lincoln."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8144398/who-mp-anna-soubry-remainer-brexit/
yup thats a pretty brutal kicking,
AfD accusing the SPD and Greens in Bremen for inciting the attack
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article186713350/Frank-Magnitz-AfD-macht-rot-gruene-Hetze-fuer-Angriff-verantwortlich.html