politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trying to work out what is Britain’s European Strategy

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trying to work out what is Britain’s European Strategy

Other than, arguably, joining the US in the second Iraq war in 2003, the worst post-war strategic mistake made by any British government was the decision not to join what became the EU in 1958 at the start. Had it done so it would have played a leading role and would have helped shape it into an organisation with rules, aims and a culture with which it could have been much more comfortable. Rather than being seen as a foreign institution, it would have been seen as a British one it helped create, shape and govern. Ah well. All too late now. Does any of this really matter? Yes. Here’s why.

Read the full story here

FrancisUrquhart

First

MarqueeMark

Second like Remain.

Nigelb

FrancisUrquhart said:

First

Brexit, and then ... what ?

Second isn't really an answer. Or even third.

Philip_Thompson

I agree with all but one point. The EU in normal circumstances may not be an enemy, but the EU at present trying to essentially economically annex Northern Ireland is at best hostile if not an enemy. It needs to be treated as such unless or until a civilised, respectful alternative can be found.

Its not necessary, but its the situation we find ourselves in and will continue to find ourselves in unless or until we stand up for ourselves.

AlastairMeeks

Odd the planning being done for things that the no-deal Leavers consider impossible:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1082558588063805440

El_Capitano

Good article.

One could extend it and ask if Britain has any strategy at all.

Philip_Thompson

FPT

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

This is what happens when people stop punching the far right.

Ah, incitement to violence. A typical response from the left.

The history of facing down Nazi's without using violence is limited.

No it isn't. We have a proud history in this country of facing down fascists using words not violence.

We defeated other nations fascists using warfare. Our own we defeated democratically.

Genuine Nazis in this country are a rag tag and bobtail, rather than a serious threat.

As are the muppets harassing Soubry yesterday.

No reason we shouldn't face them down in a civilised non-violent manner in the same way as Nick Griffin was faced down until the BNP was eliminated. Or the blackshirts before him.

No need to resort to violence in the streets as grabcocque advocated. That just drags us down to their level.

Philip_Thompson

AlastairMeeks said:

Odd the planning being done for things that the no-deal Leavers consider impossible:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1082558588063805440

We should always plan for extremely unlikely/impossible things. That's why we have Trident.

I've not seen anyone yet advocate why there should not be no deal planning but should be Trident.

Alanbrooke

Neither Leavers nor Remainers have a European strategy. We have drifted along half in half out for nearly half a century.

The mould is now broken and it will take a few years before a new one is made.

AlastairMeeks

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all but one point. The EU in normal circumstances may not be an enemy, but the EU at present trying to essentially economically annex Northern Ireland is at best hostile if not an enemy. It needs to be treated as such unless or until a civilised, respectful alternative can be found.

Its not necessary, but its the situation we find ourselves in and will continue to find ourselves in unless or until we stand up for ourselves.

Wouldn't it be simpler if the rest of the UK just divested of Northern Ireland? Frankly, we'd get a second large financial dividend, and dealing with the awkward buggers would become someone else's problem...

JosiasJessop

Way off-topic:

Close but no cigar: trying to catch a rocket fairing with a net.

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1082469132291923968

Alanbrooke

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

Brexit was just as much about Remainers inability to convince voters why staying in was to their benefit.

Alanbrooke

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all but one point. The EU in normal circumstances may not be an enemy, but the EU at present trying to essentially economically annex Northern Ireland is at best hostile if not an enemy. It needs to be treated as such unless or until a civilised, respectful alternative can be found.

Its not necessary, but its the situation we find ourselves in and will continue to find ourselves in unless or until we stand up for ourselves.

Wouldn't it be simpler if the rest of the UK just divested of Northern Ireland? Frankly, we'd get a second large financial dividend, and dealing with the awkward buggers would become someone else's problem...

and youll be selling it to whom ?

Richard_Tyndall

On topic, I would certainly agree that the EU are not our enemy at present. But I believe Cyclefree makes a mistake in forgetting Palmerston's maxim;

“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”

Too many people regard the EU as our friends. Just like those regarding them as our enemies they are sorely mistaken.

Nigelb

What it won’t have achieved is any idea of where next nor what control Britain will be taking back and for what purpose.

You raise a good question - but as we haven't even agreed the manner of our leaving, serious thinking about our future relationship with Europe isn't going to be done by anyone with the capacity of actually influencing it for quite some time.

stodge

Afternoon all

Thank you, Cyclefree, for a most erudite piece and it's hard to disagree with most of it.

I think after the Suez debacle, MacMillan and others came to see Europe as the only way forward but we were blocked in 1962 by De Gaulle so we lost a decade or more of potential influence. I do agree had we been more fully involved at Messina it could and would have been so much different but we still thought of ourselves as a "Great Power".

Ironically, we still do - we have the Bomb, the seat on the Security Council and the best armed forces in the world (though not too many of them). We think we punch above our weight (and we do) but it was noticeable the US had planned in 2003 to "cover" Basra if we decided not to join the invasion. We were a useful accomplice, that's all.

Yes, our EU membership was half-hearted, opt-out riddled, rebate obsessed and often mean spirited. We failed for the most part to engage and create the ideal - an Anglo-French-German Axis which could have led Europe forward into the 21st Century. It wasn't entirely our fault but I remember Major making a virtue of "not negotiating" in the mid 90s to appease his "bastards" who eventually won the day.

I don't want an antagonistic relationship with Europe or the EU and I've not met anyone who does. As you say, they are not "the enemy" but why should we be surprised if they prioritise their interests over ours?

Richard_Nabavi

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.

Nigelb

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

Brexit was just as much about Remainers inability to convince voters why staying in was to their benefit.

You seem still to be fighting the referendum battle, which rather proves Alastair's point.
Whether or not you find them persuasive, advocates of Remain were, and are quite clear about what they want.

Care to explain the Leave agenda ?

Alanbrooke

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

Brexit was just as much about Remainers inability to convince voters why staying in was to their benefit.

You seem still to be fighting the referendum battle, which rather proves Alastair's point.
Whether or not you find them persuasive, advocates of Remain were, and are quite clear about what they want.

Care to explain the Leave agenda ?

There is no Leave agenda

Leave was a statement by a ,majority of voters that the current system doesnt work for them and that change is needed.

Foxy

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all but one point. The EU in normal circumstances may not be an enemy, but the EU at present trying to essentially economically annex Northern Ireland is at best hostile if not an enemy. It needs to be treated as such unless or until a civilised, respectful alternative can be found.

Its not necessary, but its the situation we find ourselves in and will continue to find ourselves in unless or until we stand up for ourselves.

What we are seeing in NI is the consequences of the GFA, which mandated power sharing within NI by the factions, but also defacto powersharing between GB and ROI responsibilities. Joint responsibility was an elegant solution to a Century of violence, but only really worked within the context of all being part of the EU.

NI has always had exceptional status.

Nigelb

Richard_Tyndall said:

On topic, I would certainly agree that the EU are not our enemy at present. But I believe Cyclefree makes a mistake in forgetting Palmerston's maxim;

“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”

Too many people regard the EU as our friends. Just like those regarding them as our enemies they are sorely mistaken.

Palmerston's dictum was at the time of our imperial zenith. These days we are rather more exposed, should we decide we don't require allies.

Nigelb

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

Brexit was just as much about Remainers inability to convince voters why staying in was to their benefit.

You seem still to be fighting the referendum battle, which rather proves Alastair's point.
Whether or not you find them persuasive, advocates of Remain were, and are quite clear about what they want.

Care to explain the Leave agenda ?

There is no Leave agenda

Leave was a statement by a ,majority of voters that the current system doesnt work for them and that change is needed.

So you do agree with Alastair.

Nigelb

Richard_Nabavi said:

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.

It might have been possible not to attempt to derail it at the outset, though.
Which might have led to rather better relations subsequently.

kle4

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

Sadly true. I'm as guilty of anyone there. I assumed after much shouting our mps woukd sort something basically palatable out. But They don't even want to. They want nothing less than full remain or scorched earth (unicorns don't count).

Alanbrooke

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

Brexit was just as much about Remainers inability to convince voters why staying in was to their benefit.

You seem still to be fighting the referendum battle, which rather proves Alastair's point.
Whether or not you find them persuasive, advocates of Remain were, and are quite clear about what they want.

Care to explain the Leave agenda ?

There is no Leave agenda

Leave was a statement by a ,majority of voters that the current system doesnt work for them and that change is needed.

So you do agree with Alastair.

To a point yes.

CarlottaVance

In no surprise to anyone, Carole really didn't like the Brexit drama.....

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/07/you-whitewashed-the-corruption-james-graham-and-carole-cadwalladr-on-brexit-the-uncivil-war?CMP=share_btn_tw

Richard_Tyndall

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

On topic, I would certainly agree that the EU are not our enemy at present. But I believe Cyclefree makes a mistake in forgetting Palmerston's maxim;

“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”

Too many people regard the EU as our friends. Just like those regarding them as our enemies they are sorely mistaken.

Palmerston's dictum was at the time of our imperial zenith. These days we are rather more exposed, should we decide we don't require allies.

He was not saying we did not need allies. He was recognising that countries rightly have vested interests which preclude permanent friendships. Too many people forget this and are then surprised when a supposed friend starts acting in a way that damages our country.

David_Evershed

Taking back control gives the UK options and flexibility to decide its own future on issues about which we are not yet aware.

By nature, culture, history and geography the Uk looks more to the USA and other non EU countries than do the European countries.

Philip_Thompson

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all but one point. The EU in normal circumstances may not be an enemy, but the EU at present trying to essentially economically annex Northern Ireland is at best hostile if not an enemy. It needs to be treated as such unless or until a civilised, respectful alternative can be found.

Its not necessary, but its the situation we find ourselves in and will continue to find ourselves in unless or until we stand up for ourselves.

What we are seeing in NI is the consequences of the GFA, which mandated power sharing within NI by the factions, but also defacto powersharing between GB and ROI responsibilities. Joint responsibility was an elegant solution to a Century of violence, but only really worked within the context of all being part of the EU.

NI has always had exceptional status.

If the EU were seeking power sharing I would have no objection to that.

It isn't though, it is seeking complete unilateral control and f**k the unionists. That's a violation of the GFA.

If the GFA had Ireland annexing NI in it then it would never have been signed. To pretend that is what it means now is absurd.

Anazina

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Proposals to bar students without three Ds at A-level would hit courses such as nursing and ‘strike at heart of social mobility’

The ideas have been leaked from the prime minister’s review of post-18 education, chaired by Philip Augar, a former equities broker, which is expected to report next month. One idea would stop young people qualifying for a loan if they didn’t get three Ds at A-level.

Last year nearly 8,000 UK 18-year-olds were accepted to study at university with 3Ds or lower, according to new data released by the admissions service Ucas last month. Universities say these applicants are much more likely to be from poorer families.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jan/08/university-chiefs-angry-elitish-student-loan-plans

It is just me, or it is not ever so slightly concerning that 3 Ds is enough to get you on a nursing course in the first place! And social mobility, if you can't get 3 Ds, should you be going to uni full time regardless of where you come from?

I agree.

3Ds means you should be working at McDonalds or getting a place at Oxford.

I don't have a degree, and think that those who sneer at people without degrees or poor qualifications should go and work in their natural habitat, the sewers.

Except those who buy Apple products. They are, naturally, excellent lads and lasses.

You see you were spot on until you mentioned Apple products. Now I doubt your sanity

Apple is a wonderful company. I've never, ever, said that they steal and sell overpriced tat to idiots who care more about form than function.

As an aside, this is an interesting case for us:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/12/20/apples-iphone-found-to-infringe-on-qualcomm-patent-in-german-court

I'll leave others to guess why it's interesting.

There are several people on this forum who don't buy Apple products, yet are weirdly obsessed with Apple.

If you don't like a product, nobody is forcing you to buy it, just buy something else.

It really is that simple.

GIN1138

Have we seen @grabcocque on 24hr news channels squaring up to the protesters in Parliament Square yet?

It could finish up like the during the 2010 general election when Martin Day or Martin Coxall (both formally of this parish) got carted off in a police van on live telly.

Nigelb

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

On topic, I would certainly agree that the EU are not our enemy at present. But I believe Cyclefree makes a mistake in forgetting Palmerston's maxim;

“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”

Too many people regard the EU as our friends. Just like those regarding them as our enemies they are sorely mistaken.

Palmerston's dictum was at the time of our imperial zenith. These days we are rather more exposed, should we decide we don't require allies.

He was not saying we did not need allies. He was recognising that countries rightly have vested interests which preclude permanent friendships. Too many people forget this and are then surprised when a supposed friend starts acting in a way that damages our country.

And how many friendships are permanent anyway ?

I was pointing out the Palmerston was speaking from a position of comparative complacency. Our interests rather more urgently require that we retain allies.

AlastairMeeks

Anazina said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Proposals to bar students without three Ds at A-level would hit courses such as nursing and ‘strike at heart of social mobility’

The ideas have been leaked from the prime minister’s review of post-18 education, chaired by Philip Augar, a former equities broker, which is expected to report next month. One idea would stop young people qualifying for a loan if they didn’t get three Ds at A-level.

Last year nearly 8,000 UK 18-year-olds were accepted to study at university with 3Ds or lower, according to new data released by the admissions service Ucas last month. Universities say these applicants are much more likely to be from poorer families.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jan/08/university-chiefs-angry-elitish-student-loan-plans

It is just me, or it is not ever so slightly concerning that 3 Ds is enough to get you on a nursing course in the first place! And social mobility, if you can't get 3 Ds, should you be going to uni full time regardless of where you come from?

I agree.

3Ds means you should be working at McDonalds or getting a place at Oxford.

I don't have a degree, and think that those who sneer at people without degrees or poor qualifications should go and work in their natural habitat, the sewers.

Except those who buy Apple products. They are, naturally, excellent lads and lasses.

You see you were spot on until you mentioned Apple products. Now I doubt your sanity

Apple is a wonderful company. I've never, ever, said that they steal and sell overpriced tat to idiots who care more about form than function.

As an aside, this is an interesting case for us:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/12/20/apples-iphone-found-to-infringe-on-qualcomm-patent-in-german-court

I'll leave others to guess why it's interesting.

There are several people on this forum who don't buy Apple products, yet are weirdly obsessed with Apple.

If you don't like a product, nobody is forcing you to buy it, just buy something else.

It really is that simple.

Heaven forbid that Apple should ever produce a vegan sausage roll.

(It would cost £50, be indistinguishable in appearance or taste from any of the others on the market, have a glossy advertising campaign featuring clear-skinned athletic models of all ages, races and gender identities nibbling at it and it would crumble in your hands before you got it into your mouth.)

Beverley_C

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all but one point. The EU in normal circumstances may not be an enemy, but the EU at present trying to essentially economically annex Northern Ireland is at best hostile if not an enemy. It needs to be treated as such unless or until a civilised, respectful alternative can be found.

Its not necessary, but its the situation we find ourselves in and will continue to find ourselves in unless or until we stand up for ourselves.

Wouldn't it be simpler if the rest of the UK just divested of Northern Ireland? Frankly, we'd get a second large financial dividend, and dealing with the awkward buggers would become someone else's problem...

and youll be selling it to whom ?

I doubt the Leavers care very much about Norn Iron. Nothing - absolutely nothing - must get in the way of ensuring England's splendid isolation from reality and a retreat into the past that the UK leaves. Divesting themselves of a small foreign country outlying province is a price worth paying.

Stark_Dawning

GIN1138 said:

Have we seen @grabcocque on 24hr news channels squaring up to the protesters in Parliament Square yet?

It could finish up like the during the 2010 general election when Martin Day (formally of this parish) got carted off in a police van on live telly.

Was that Martin Day or Martin Coxall? I see to remember the latter prancing about in a John Prescott mask.

David_Evershed

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

Peter_the_Punter

Brilliant, Cyclefree.

Makes you weep at the mess our political classes have led us into.

Beverley_C

Alanbrooke said:

Leave was a statement by a ,majority of voters that the current system doesnt work for them and that change is needed.

They may be rather surprised to find that No-Deal Brexit might scupper what little they have left. There are no sunny uplands ahead no matter what the outcome.

stodge

Richard_Nabavi said:

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.

Two thoughts occur when reading this. First, we maintained a significant military presence in Europe as part of NATO through the BAOR in West Germany. We had signed up to NATO and the principle of collective defence against the Warsaw Pact.

The second aspect was the psychological impact of Suez - militarily successful but in the end the economic power of the US and the UK's own financial weakness told. For all the power we thought we had, in the financial wargame we were very weak and Washington knew it and used money as a weapon.

The reality of life after Suez was we could no longer afford to be a global power and if we tried we could only do so with Washington's acquiescence. Going in economically with a recovering western Europe made sense then but while it was the financially right thing to do it wasn't a step the country found easy to make politically or culturally.

We had never been defeated, we had never been conquered, we had never seen enemy troops in our streets (apart from the Channel Islands) and we had never been humiliated. Suez was the worst national experience since the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1783.

Nigel_Foremain

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

This is what happens when people stop punching the far right.

Ah, incitement to violence. A typical response from the left.

The history of facing down Nazi's without using violence is limited.

No it isn't. We have a proud history in this country of facing down fascists using words not violence.

We defeated other nations fascists using warfare. Our own we defeated democratically.

Genuine Nazis in this country are a rag tag and bobtail, rather than a serious threat.

As are the muppets harassing Soubry yesterday.

No reason we shouldn't face them down in a civilised non-violent manner in the same way as Nick Griffin was faced down until the BNP was eliminated. Or the blackshirts before him.

No need to resort to violence in the streets as grabcocque advocated. That just drags us down to their level.

There is very little difference between UKIP and the BNP, other than that the former march in brogues and the latter in jackboots. UKIP used to be a little more circumspect about the basic racism of a large number of its members and supporters, though that now appears to be becoming more overt. Alan Sked has said that Farage is a racist and that he was in favour of using ex National Front candidates for UKIP. While he has half hearted denied it, I don't think Farage has sued.

GIN1138

Stark_Dawning said:

GIN1138 said:

Have we seen @grabcocque on 24hr news channels squaring up to the protesters in Parliament Square yet?

It could finish up like the during the 2010 general election when Martin Day or Martin Coxall (both formally of this parish) got carted off in a police van on live telly.

Was that Martin Day or Martin Coxall? I see to remember the latter prancing about in a John Prescott mask.

Not sure. It was definitely one of the Martin's. I've edited "just in case"

Tissue_Price

Anazina said:

If you don't like a product, nobody is forcing you to buy it, just buy something else.

It really is that simple.

We'll make a Tory out of you yet.

Nigel_Foremain

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

Brexit was just as much about Remainers inability to convince voters why staying in was to their benefit.

It is difficult to persuade the fundamentally stupid of the truth, while it is somewhat easy to persuade them of total bollocks.

Stark_Dawning

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

GIN1138 said:

Have we seen @grabcocque on 24hr news channels squaring up to the protesters in Parliament Square yet?

It could finish up like the during the 2010 general election when Martin Day or Martin Coxall (both formally of this parish got carted off in a police van on live telly.

Was that Martin Day or Martin Coxall? I see to remember the latter prancing about in a John Prescott mask.

Not sure. It was definitely one of the Martin's. I've edited "just in case"

Yes, I think it was Coxall. His brush with infamy is recorded for ever at the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/22/conservative-candidate-arrested-assault-women

CarlottaVance

Richard_Nabavi said:

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.

Not just trade - personal and family relationships. Perhaps it was more pronounced in Scotland - but as a child Christmas brought presents and cards from relations in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And when they visited they were noticeably better off than we were.

Even today the 'British Diaspora' is dominated by the Anglosphere - Australia, the US, Canada and New Zealand four of the top 5 outside the British Isles (2.8 million). After Spain (700,000 pensioners, or so we're told), France (200,000) and Germany (115,000) are the only other countries with above 100,000. Canada has twice as many as France & Germany combined. We've long had and exercised 'freedom of movement' - just not within Europe.

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all but one point. The EU in normal circumstances may not be an enemy, but the EU at present trying to essentially economically annex Northern Ireland is at best hostile if not an enemy. It needs to be treated as such unless or until a civilised, respectful alternative can be found.

Its not necessary, but its the situation we find ourselves in and will continue to find ourselves in unless or until we stand up for ourselves.

Wouldn't it be simpler if the rest of the UK just divested of Northern Ireland? Frankly, we'd get a second large financial dividend, and dealing with the awkward buggers would become someone else's problem...

I'd be fine with that though not sure if the unionists in NI would be. If we could get NI voters to vote for that to approve that happening I'd be delighted.

Peter_the_Punter

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all but one point. The EU in normal circumstances may not be an enemy, but the EU at present trying to essentially economically annex Northern Ireland is at best hostile if not an enemy. It needs to be treated as such unless or until a civilised, respectful alternative can be found.

Its not necessary, but its the situation we find ourselves in and will continue to find ourselves in unless or until we stand up for ourselves.

Wouldn't it be simpler if the rest of the UK just divested of Northern Ireland? Frankly, we'd get a second large financial dividend, and dealing with the awkward buggers would become someone else's problem...

Divest to whom?

The Republic would be taking on a hell of a burden and I can't see who else would have it.

GIN1138

Stark_Dawning said:

GIN1138 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

GIN1138 said:

Have we seen @grabcocque on 24hr news channels squaring up to the protesters in Parliament Square yet?

It could finish up like the during the 2010 general election when Martin Day or Martin Coxall (both formally of this parish got carted off in a police van on live telly.

Was that Martin Day or Martin Coxall? I see to remember the latter prancing about in a John Prescott mask.

Not sure. It was definitely one of the Martin's. I've edited "just in case"

Yes, I think it was Coxall. His brush with infamy is recorded for ever at the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/22/conservative-candidate-arrested-assault-women

Yep, that's the one. Maybe we'll get a re-run with how fired up @grabcocque is today?

Nigel_Foremain

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

That is because the indolent lightweights that represent the headbanging self-harm tendency of the Conservative party fled the field as soon as things got a little complicated.

Beverley_C

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

The Tory party are Remainers? Please recall that Parliament has voted for every pro-Brexit motion so far and Mrs May is busy charging us off a cliff.

The ... negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers ..." meme is, at best, nonsense.

Philip_Thompson

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

This is what happens when people stop punching the far right.

Ah, incitement to violence. A typical response from the left.

The history of facing down Nazi's without using violence is limited.

No it isn't. We have a proud history in this country of facing down fascists using words not violence.

We defeated other nations fascists using warfare. Our own we defeated democratically.

Genuine Nazis in this country are a rag tag and bobtail, rather than a serious threat.

As are the muppets harassing Soubry yesterday.

No reason we shouldn't face them down in a civilised non-violent manner in the same way as Nick Griffin was faced down until the BNP was eliminated. Or the blackshirts before him.

No need to resort to violence in the streets as grabcocque advocated. That just drags us down to their level.

There is very little difference between UKIP and the BNP, other than that the former march in brogues and the latter in jackboots. UKIP used to be a little more circumspect about the basic racism of a large number of its members and supporters, though that now appears to be becoming more overt. Alan Sked has said that Farage is a racist and that he was in favour of using ex National Front candidates for UKIP. While he has half hearted denied it, I don't think Farage has sued.

Agreed I've often used the nickname 'BNP in blazers' for UKIP but while the BNP were outright racist, UKIP were as you say much more circumspect. Much like today's Labour Party who are clearly led by antisemitic racists but officially deny racism. As a result I would never vote [though wouldn't anyway] for either yesterday's UKIP or today's Labour Party.

UKIP now are turning into an outright racist party and thankfully its share in the polls are still declining and it is turning into once more an inconsequential and irrelevant minor party. No need to punch Kippers in the face as grabcocque advocates when we can beat them at the ballot box.

Nigelb

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

Perhaps because Alastair is, again, correct ?

Philip_Thompson

Beverley_C said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

The Tory party are Remainers? Please recall that Parliament has voted for every pro-Brexit motion so far and Mrs May is busy charging us off a cliff.

The ... negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers ..." meme is, at best, nonsense.

The Tory Party is led by a Remainer yes. The civil service that has conducted the negotiations is led by Remainers yes.

Leavers in the Tory Party have been ostracised away from negotiations. I'm not even sure if there are significant Leavers in the civil service.

Beverley_C

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

The Tory party are Remainers? Please recall that Parliament has voted for every pro-Brexit motion so far and Mrs May is busy charging us off a cliff.

The ... negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers ..." meme is, at best, nonsense.

The Tory Party is led by a Remainer yes. The civil service that has conducted the negotiations is led by Remainers yes.

Leavers in the Tory Party have been ostracised away from negotiations. I'm not even sure if there are significant Leavers in the civil service.

And the fact that we are heading a Brexit under Mrs May? Are you complaining about that?

She is delivering Brexit.

Philip_Thompson

Nigel_Foremain said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

That is because the indolent lightweights that represent the headbanging self-harm tendency of the Conservative party fled the field as soon as things got a little complicated.

How?

The three leading Leave campaigers were Boris, Gove and Leadsom. Boris pulled his leadership campaign but both Gove and Leadsom stepped up to the plate. The Remain-dominated Parliamentary Tory Party overwhelmingly backed Remainer May though and the rest is history?

Anazina

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

This is what happens when people stop punching the far right.

Ah, incitement to violence. A typical response from the left.

The history of facing down Nazi's without using violence is limited.

No it isn't. We have a proud history in this country of facing down fascists using words not violence.

We defeated other nations fascists using warfare. Our own we defeated democratically.

Genuine Nazis in this country are a rag tag and bobtail, rather than a serious threat.

As are the muppets harassing Soubry yesterday.

No reason we shouldn't face them down in a civilised non-violent manner in the same way as Nick Griffin was faced down until the BNP was eliminated. Or the blackshirts before him.

No need to resort to violence in the streets as grabcocque advocated. That just drags us down to their level.

There is very little difference between UKIP and the BNP, other than that the former march in brogues and the latter in jackboots. UKIP used to be a little more circumspect about the basic racism of a large number of its members and supporters, though that now appears to be becoming more overt. Alan Sked has said that Farage is a racist and that he was in favour of using ex National Front candidates for UKIP. While he has half hearted denied it, I don't think Farage has sued.

Agreed I've often used the nickname 'BNP in blazers' for UKIP but while the BNP were outright racist, UKIP were as you say much more circumspect. Much like today's Labour Party who are clearly led by antisemitic racists but officially deny racism. As a result I would never vote [though wouldn't anyway] for either yesterday's UKIP or today's Labour Party.

UKIP now are turning into an outright racist party and thankfully its share in the polls are still declining and it is turning into once more an inconsequential and irrelevant minor party. No need to punch Kippers in the face as grabcocque advocates when we can beat them at the ballot box.

There was once a kipper on here who was clearly a powellite racist

Richard_Nabavi

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.

Not just trade - personal and family relationships. Perhaps it was more pronounced in Scotland - but as a child Christmas brought presents and cards from relations in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And when they visited they were noticeably better off than we were.

Even today the 'British Diaspora' is dominated by the Anglosphere - Australia, the US, Canada and New Zealand four of the top 5 outside the British Isles (2.8 million). After Spain (700,000 pensioners, or so we're told), France (200,000) and Germany (115,000) are the only other countries with above 100,000. Canada has twice as many as France & Germany combined. We've long had and exercised 'freedom of movement' - just not within Europe.

Yes, indeed. Younger people now won't really comprehend just how extensive a typical family's relationship with far-flung parts of the empire and commonwealth was up until the mid-sixties.

Morris_Dancer

Mrs C, she's trying to (apparently), and making such a good job of it she's managed to annoy both sides in a binary matter.

Philip_Thompson

Anazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

This is what happens when people stop punching the far right.

Ah, incitement to violence. A typical response from the left.

The history of facing down Nazi's without using violence is limited.

No it isn't. We have a proud history in this country of facing down fascists using words not violence.

We defeated other nations fascists using warfare. Our own we defeated democratically.

Genuine Nazis in this country are a rag tag and bobtail, rather than a serious threat.

As are the muppets harassing Soubry yesterday.

No reason we shouldn't face them down in a civilised non-violent manner in the same way as Nick Griffin was faced down until the BNP was eliminated. Or the blackshirts before him.

No need to resort to violence in the streets as grabcocque advocated. That just drags us down to their level.

There is very little difference between UKIP and the BNP, other than that the former march in brogues and the latter in jackboots. UKIP used to be a little more circumspect about the basic racism of a large number of its members and supporters, though that now appears to be becoming more overt. Alan Sked has said that Farage is a racist and that he was in favour of using ex National Front candidates for UKIP. While he has half hearted denied it, I don't think Farage has sued.

Agreed I've often used the nickname 'BNP in blazers' for UKIP but while the BNP were outright racist, UKIP were as you say much more circumspect. Much like today's Labour Party who are clearly led by antisemitic racists but officially deny racism. As a result I would never vote [though wouldn't anyway] for either yesterday's UKIP or today's Labour Party.

UKIP now are turning into an outright racist party and thankfully its share in the polls are still declining and it is turning into once more an inconsequential and irrelevant minor party. No need to punch Kippers in the face as grabcocque advocates when we can beat them at the ballot box.

There was once a kipper on here who was clearly a powellite racist

Yes there was and I frequently argued against him and against his Powell-supporting garbage. Never advocated punching him though.

Alistair

FTPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

This is what happens when people stop punching the far right.

Ah, incitement to violence. A typical response from the left.

The history of facing down Nazi's without using violence is limited.

No it isn't. We have a proud history in this country of facing down fascists using words not violence.

We defeated other nations fascists using warfare. Our own we defeated democratically.

Ah yes, the famed Polite Conversation of Cable Street.

David_Evershed

GIN1138 said:

Have we seen @grabcocque on 24hr news channels squaring up to the protesters in Parliament Square yet?

It could finish up like the during the 2010 general election when Martin Day or Martin Coxall (both formally of this parish) got carted off in a police van on live telly.

MPs live in a fairly genteel world. Many could be described as snowflakes who melt away easily.

They are now receiving some invective from people who live in the rough end of town where such verbal assaults are more common. Also many manual workers will be more familiar with such harsh words being bandied about but there are few with such background in parliament. This is the consequence of the Brexit debate bringing such people into the political conversation. In a democracy even the uneducated and uncouth get an equal say.

Beverley_C

Peter_the_Punter said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all but one point. The EU in normal circumstances may not be an enemy, but the EU at present trying to essentially economically annex Northern Ireland is at best hostile if not an enemy. It needs to be treated as such unless or until a civilised, respectful alternative can be found.

Its not necessary, but its the situation we find ourselves in and will continue to find ourselves in unless or until we stand up for ourselves.

Wouldn't it be simpler if the rest of the UK just divested of Northern Ireland? Frankly, we'd get a second large financial dividend, and dealing with the awkward buggers would become someone else's problem...

Divest to whom?

The Republic would be taking on a hell of a burden and I can't see who else would have it.

Maybe GB will just cut Norn Iron loose and leave the mess for the EU and RoI to sort out?

Anazina

AlastairMeeks said:

Anazina said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Proposals to bar students without three Ds at A-level would hit courses such as nursing and ‘strike at heart of social mobility’

The ideas have been leaked from the prime minister’s review of post-18 education, chaired by Philip Augar, a former equities broker, which is expected to report next month. One idea would stop young people qualifying for a loan if they didn’t get three Ds at A-level.

Last year nearly 8,000 UK 18-year-olds were accepted to study at university with 3Ds or lower, according to new data released by the admissions service Ucas last month. Universities say these applicants are much more likely to be from poorer families.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jan/08/university-chiefs-angry-elitish-student-loan-plans

It is just me, or it is not ever so slightly concerning that 3 Ds is enough to get you on a nursing course in the first place! And social mobility, if you can't get 3 Ds, should you be going to uni full time regardless of where you come from?

I agree.

3Ds means you should be working at McDonalds or getting a place at Oxford.

I don't have a degree, and think that those who sneer at people without degrees or poor qualifications should go and work in their natural habitat, the sewers.

Except those who buy Apple products. They are, naturally, excellent lads and lasses.

You see you were spot on until you mentioned Apple products. Now I doubt your sanity

Apple is a wonderful company. I've never, ever, said that they steal and sell overpriced tat to idiots who care more about form than function.

As an aside, this is an interesting case for us:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/12/20/apples-iphone-found-to-infringe-on-qualcomm-patent-in-german-court

I'll leave others to guess why it's interesting.

There are several people on this forum who don't buy Apple products, yet are weirdly obsessed with Apple.

If you don't like a product, nobody is forcing you to buy it, just buy something else.

It really is that simple.

Heaven forbid that Apple should ever produce a vegan sausage roll.

(It would cost £50, be indistinguishable in appearance or taste from any of the others on the market, have a glossy advertising campaign featuring clear-skinned athletic models of all ages, races and gender identities nibbling at it and it would crumble in your hands before you got it into your mouth.)

I await with bated breath the day Apple launch an iPhone advertising campaign based on the Tube scene in Darkest Hour.

David_Evershed

Beverley_C said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all but one point. The EU in normal circumstances may not be an enemy, but the EU at present trying to essentially economically annex Northern Ireland is at best hostile if not an enemy. It needs to be treated as such unless or until a civilised, respectful alternative can be found.

Its not necessary, but its the situation we find ourselves in and will continue to find ourselves in unless or until we stand up for ourselves.

Wouldn't it be simpler if the rest of the UK just divested of Northern Ireland? Frankly, we'd get a second large financial dividend, and dealing with the awkward buggers would become someone else's problem...

Divest to whom?

The Republic would be taking on a hell of a burden and I can't see who else would have it.

Maybe GB will just cut Norn Iron loose and leave the mess for the EU and RoI to sort out?

The Uk has laws that mean NI has self determination.

Nigel_Foremain

stodge said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.

Two thoughts occur when reading this. First, we maintained a significant military presence in Europe as part of NATO through the BAOR in West Germany. We had signed up to NATO and the principle of collective defence against the Warsaw Pact.

The second aspect was the psychological impact of Suez - militarily successful but in the end the economic power of the US and the UK's own financial weakness told. For all the power we thought we had, in the financial wargame we were very weak and Washington knew it and used money as a weapon.

The reality of life after Suez was we could no longer afford to be a global power and if we tried we could only do so with Washington's acquiescence. Going in economically with a recovering western Europe made sense then but while it was the financially right thing to do it wasn't a step the country found easy to make politically or culturally.

We had never been defeated, we had never been conquered, we had never seen enemy troops in our streets (apart from the Channel Islands) and we had never been humiliated. Suez was the worst national experience since the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1783.

Suez is a great example of why we should not be too much in hock to the Americans (much as I love them). To swap a trade block agreement with Europe for a thoroughly asymmetrical one with Trump's USA would be the height of irrational stupidity, but it is what many of the greatest brains in favour of Brexit wish to advance!

Philip_Thompson

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

The Tory party are Remainers? Please recall that Parliament has voted for every pro-Brexit motion so far and Mrs May is busy charging us off a cliff.

The ... negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers ..." meme is, at best, nonsense.

The Tory Party is led by a Remainer yes. The civil service that has conducted the negotiations is led by Remainers yes.

Leavers in the Tory Party have been ostracised away from negotiations. I'm not even sure if there are significant Leavers in the civil service.

And the fact that we are heading a Brexit under Mrs May? Are you complaining about that?

She is delivering Brexit.

She is trying to deliver Brexit at the cost of signing up to let the EU unilaterally and without consent from the people living there economically annex Northern Ireland. Tying our hands in the negotiations in the process. I'm not OK with that.

Get NI voters to back what is being done and I'm fine with what is happening. Alternatively treat the UK as an indivisible block and Brexit properly and I'm fine with that.

Beverley_C

David_Evershed said:

Beverley_C said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all but one point. The EU in normal circumstances may not be an enemy, but the EU at present trying to essentially economically annex Northern Ireland is at best hostile if not an enemy. It needs to be treated as such unless or until a civilised, respectful alternative can be found.

Its not necessary, but its the situation we find ourselves in and will continue to find ourselves in unless or until we stand up for ourselves.

Wouldn't it be simpler if the rest of the UK just divested of Northern Ireland? Frankly, we'd get a second large financial dividend, and dealing with the awkward buggers would become someone else's problem...

Divest to whom?

The Republic would be taking on a hell of a burden and I can't see who else would have it.

Maybe GB will just cut Norn Iron loose and leave the mess for the EU and RoI to sort out?

The Uk has laws that mean NI has self determination.

Desperate times require desperate measures

Philip_Thompson

Nigel_Foremain said:

stodge said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.

Two thoughts occur when reading this. First, we maintained a significant military presence in Europe as part of NATO through the BAOR in West Germany. We had signed up to NATO and the principle of collective defence against the Warsaw Pact.

The second aspect was the psychological impact of Suez - militarily successful but in the end the economic power of the US and the UK's own financial weakness told. For all the power we thought we had, in the financial wargame we were very weak and Washington knew it and used money as a weapon.

The reality of life after Suez was we could no longer afford to be a global power and if we tried we could only do so with Washington's acquiescence. Going in economically with a recovering western Europe made sense then but while it was the financially right thing to do it wasn't a step the country found easy to make politically or culturally.

We had never been defeated, we had never been conquered, we had never seen enemy troops in our streets (apart from the Channel Islands) and we had never been humiliated. Suez was the worst national experience since the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1783.

Suez is a great example of why we should not be too much in hock to the Americans (much as I love them). To swap a trade block agreement with Europe for a thoroughly asymmetrical one with Trump's USA would be the height of irrational stupidity, but it is what many of the greatest brains in favour of Brexit wish to advance!

I would rather be an independent middle-ranking global-facing G7 power than a subordinate to either Washington DC or Brussels. The UK can stand on its own and work with DC and Brussels as and when it suits us without being bound in chains to either.

Nigel_Foremain

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

That is because the indolent lightweights that represent the headbanging self-harm tendency of the Conservative party fled the field as soon as things got a little complicated.

How?

The three leading Leave campaigers were Boris, Gove and Leadsom. Boris pulled his leadership campaign but both Gove and Leadsom stepped up to the plate. The Remain-dominated Parliamentary Tory Party overwhelmingly backed Remainer May though and the rest is history?

Davis, Raab, Johnson. Loathsome is an irrelevance. Gove is a late convert to pragmatic reality, but I think he is just putting himself in the best position he can to lead the Conservative Party to defeat at the next election

Gallowgate

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1082627029328105473?s=20

This will be interesting.

Sean_F

Alistair said:

FTPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

This is what happens when people stop punching the far right.

Ah, incitement to violence. A typical response from the left.

The history of facing down Nazi's without using violence is limited.

No it isn't. We have a proud history in this country of facing down fascists using words not violence.

We defeated other nations fascists using warfare. Our own we defeated democratically.

Ah yes, the famed Polite Conversation of Cable Street.

Mostly a fight between protestors and police.

Beverley_C

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

The Tory party are Remainers? Please recall that Parliament has voted for every pro-Brexit motion so far and Mrs May is busy charging us off a cliff.

The ... negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers ..." meme is, at best, nonsense.

The Tory Party is led by a Remainer yes. The civil service that has conducted the negotiations is led by Remainers yes.

Leavers in the Tory Party have been ostracised away from negotiations. I'm not even sure if there are significant Leavers in the civil service.

And the fact that we are heading a Brexit under Mrs May? Are you complaining about that?

She is delivering Brexit.

She is trying to deliver Brexit at the cost of signing up to let the EU unilaterally and without consent from the people living there economically annex Northern Ireland. Tying our hands in the negotiations in the process. I'm not OK with that.

Get NI voters to back what is being done and I'm fine with what is happening. Alternatively treat the UK as an indivisible block and Brexit properly and I'm fine with that.

It is a form of Brexit. That is what was voted for.

JosiasJessop

Anazina said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Proposals to bar students without three Ds at A-level would hit courses such as nursing and ‘strike at heart of social mobility’

The ideas have been leaked from the prime minister’s review of post-18 education, chaired by Philip Augar, a former equities broker, which is expected to report next month. One idea would stop young people qualifying for a loan if they didn’t get three Ds at A-level.

Last year nearly 8,000 UK 18-year-olds were accepted to study at university with 3Ds or lower, according to new data released by the admissions service Ucas last month. Universities say these applicants are much more likely to be from poorer families.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jan/08/university-chiefs-angry-elitish-student-loan-plans

It is just me, or it is not ever so slightly concerning that 3 Ds is enough to get you on a nursing course in the first place! And social mobility, if you can't get 3 Ds, should you be going to uni full time regardless of where you come from?

I agree.

3Ds means you should be working at McDonalds or getting a place at Oxford.

I don't have a degree, and think that those who sneer at people without degrees or poor qualifications should go and work in their natural habitat, the sewers.

Except those who buy Apple products. They are, naturally, excellent lads and lasses.

You see you were spot on until you mentioned Apple products. Now I doubt your sanity

Apple is a wonderful company. I've never, ever, said that they steal and sell overpriced tat to idiots who care more about form than function.

As an aside, this is an interesting case for us:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/12/20/apples-iphone-found-to-infringe-on-qualcomm-patent-in-german-court

I'll leave others to guess why it's interesting.

There are several people on this forum who don't buy Apple products, yet are weirdly obsessed with Apple.

If you don't like a product, nobody is forcing you to buy it, just buy something else.

It really is that simple.

I used to work in the industry, and Mrs J still does. I have very, very good reasons to criticise Apple and its business practices, yet alone its products.

And it's probably best if I'm careful what I say, so don't ask for specifics. But you might be interested in the link I posted in the previous thread.

williamglenn

Richard_Nabavi said:

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.

What about France? Arguably the psychological resonance of France as an empire during the post-war period was even greater because of the occupation of its European heart. At the time the ECSC was created France was fighting a colonial war in Vietnam and Algeria was still part of metropolitan France.

It was entirely possible for the UK to have got involved from the beginning, but we didn't take it seriously enough.

OllyT

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

Brexit was just as much about Remainers inability to convince voters why staying in was to their benefit.

You seem still to be fighting the referendum battle, which rather proves Alastair's point.
Whether or not you find them persuasive, advocates of Remain were, and are quite clear about what they want.

Care to explain the Leave agenda ?

There is no Leave agenda

Leave was a statement by a ,majority of voters that the current system doesnt work for them and that change is needed.

Yes but what "change"?

Peter Kellner had it spot in when commenting on the recent YouGov poll showing Remain 26% ahead of May's deal and 16% of No Deal.

"This pattern is familiar to referendums in different countries: many people support the broad idea of change, but back away when the details are laid out. They want “change”, but not “this change”.

The leave campaigns offered inconsistent and contradictory Brexit outcomes. Very easy to blame all the ills of the "left behind" on the EU. Quite another to come up with remedies. Leavers never had a plan going forward, they still don't and they still arguing amongst themselves about what to do. Gradually people are seeing it for what it is.

Philip_Thompson

Alistair said:

FTPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

This is what happens when people stop punching the far right.

Ah, incitement to violence. A typical response from the left.

The history of facing down Nazi's without using violence is limited.

No it isn't. We have a proud history in this country of facing down fascists using words not violence.

We defeated other nations fascists using warfare. Our own we defeated democratically.

Ah yes, the famed Polite Conversation of Cable Street.

You think Mosley was defeated by Cable Street? It gets a lot of attention now but he continued to lead the BUF for years afterwards and fought and lost elections for years afterwards.

Gallowgate

JosiasJessop said:

Anazina said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Proposals to bar students without three Ds at A-level would hit courses such as nursing and ‘strike at heart of social mobility’

The ideas have been leaked from the prime minister’s review of post-18 education, chaired by Philip Augar, a former equities broker, which is expected to report next month. One idea would stop young people qualifying for a loan if they didn’t get three Ds at A-level.

Last year nearly 8,000 UK 18-year-olds were accepted to study at university with 3Ds or lower, according to new data released by the admissions service Ucas last month. Universities say these applicants are much more likely to be from poorer families.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jan/08/university-chiefs-angry-elitish-student-loan-plans

It is just me, or it is not ever so slightly concerning that 3 Ds is enough to get you on a nursing course in the first place! And social mobility, if you can't get 3 Ds, should you be going to uni full time regardless of where you come from?

I agree.

3Ds means you should be working at McDonalds or getting a place at Oxford.

I don't have a degree, and think that those who sneer at people without degrees or poor qualifications should go and work in their natural habitat, the sewers.

Except those who buy Apple products. They are, naturally, excellent lads and lasses.

You see you were spot on until you mentioned Apple products. Now I doubt your sanity

Apple is a wonderful company. I've never, ever, said that they steal and sell overpriced tat to idiots who care more about form than function.

As an aside, this is an interesting case for us:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/12/20/apples-iphone-found-to-infringe-on-qualcomm-patent-in-german-court

I'll leave others to guess why it's interesting.

There are several people on this forum who don't buy Apple products, yet are weirdly obsessed with Apple.

If you don't like a product, nobody is forcing you to buy it, just buy something else.

It really is that simple.

I used to work in the industry, and Mrs J still does. I have very, very good reasons to criticise Apple and its business practices, yet alone its products.

And it's probably best if I'm careful what I say, so don't ask for specifics. But you might be interested in the link I posted in the previous thread.

With all due respect, you may as well have had said nothing at all.

I love my Macbook Pro and iPhone and would not feel comfortable buying any other company’s products in this area.

Freggles

I had a Brexit leaflet from UKIP today. Very peculiar.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

stodge said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.

Two thoughts occur when reading this. First, we maintained a significant military presence in Europe as part of NATO through the BAOR in West Germany. We had signed up to NATO and the principle of collective defence against the Warsaw Pact.

The second aspect was the psychological impact of Suez - militarily successful but in the end the economic power of the US and the UK's own financial weakness told. For all the power we thought we had, in the financial wargame we were very weak and Washington knew it and used money as a weapon.

The reality of life after Suez was we could no longer afford to be a global power and if we tried we could only do so with Washington's acquiescence. Going in economically with a recovering western Europe made sense then but while it was the financially right thing to do it wasn't a step the country found easy to make politically or culturally.

We had never been defeated, we had never been conquered, we had never seen enemy troops in our streets (apart from the Channel Islands) and we had never been humiliated. Suez was the worst national experience since the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1783.

Suez is a great example of why we should not be too much in hock to the Americans (much as I love them). To swap a trade block agreement with Europe for a thoroughly asymmetrical one with Trump's USA would be the height of irrational stupidity, but it is what many of the greatest brains in favour of Brexit wish to advance!

I would rather be an independent middle-ranking global-facing G7 power than a subordinate to either Washington DC or Brussels. The UK can stand on its own and work with DC and Brussels as and when it suits us without being bound in chains to either.

Except the UK is bound by political reality to maintain an open border for part of its territory with the EU. That creates certain constraints.

Philip_Thompson

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

The Tory party are Remainers? Please recall that Parliament has voted for every pro-Brexit motion so far and Mrs May is busy charging us off a cliff.

The ... negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers ..." meme is, at best, nonsense.

The Tory Party is led by a Remainer yes. The civil service that has conducted the negotiations is led by Remainers yes.

Leavers in the Tory Party have been ostracised away from negotiations. I'm not even sure if there are significant Leavers in the civil service.

And the fact that we are heading a Brexit under Mrs May? Are you complaining about that?

She is delivering Brexit.

She is trying to deliver Brexit at the cost of signing up to let the EU unilaterally and without consent from the people living there economically annex Northern Ireland. Tying our hands in the negotiations in the process. I'm not OK with that.

Get NI voters to back what is being done and I'm fine with what is happening. Alternatively treat the UK as an indivisible block and Brexit properly and I'm fine with that.

It is a form of Brexit. That is what was voted for.

It is a Remainers form of Brexit. It is voted for if you consider what was voted for to be a blank cheque.

Richard_Tyndall

OllyT said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

Brexit was just as much about Remainers inability to convince voters why staying in was to their benefit.

You seem still to be fighting the referendum battle, which rather proves Alastair's point.
Whether or not you find them persuasive, advocates of Remain were, and are quite clear about what they want.

Care to explain the Leave agenda ?

There is no Leave agenda

Leave was a statement by a ,majority of voters that the current system doesnt work for them and that change is needed.

Yes but what "change"?

Peter Kellner had it spot in when commenting on the recent YouGov poll showing Remain 26% ahead of May's deal and 16% of No Deal.

"This pattern is familiar to referendums in different countries: many people support the broad idea of change, but back away when the details are laid out. They want “change”, but not “this change”.

The leave campaigns offered inconsistent and contradictory Brexit outcomes. Very easy to blame all the ills of the "left behind" on the EU. Quite another to come up with remedies. Leavers never had a plan going forward, they still don't and they still arguing amongst themselves about what to do. Gradually people are seeing it for what it is.

Leave had as much of a plan as Remain. The difference being that Leave won. If Remain had won you can be 100% certain that what we would have remained in would very quickly turn out to be nothing like what was promised by Cameron.

There is also the point that the person enacting Leave was not part of the Leave campaign so what she is producing has very little to do with what most Leave voters might have wanted. There were coherent Leave plans but they have never been given a hearing by those in position to actually enact them.

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I would rather be an independent middle-ranking global-facing G7 power than a subordinate to either Washington DC or Brussels. The UK can stand on its own and work with DC and Brussels as and when it suits us without being bound in chains to either.

Except the UK is bound by political reality to maintain an open border for part of its territory with the EU. That creates certain constraints.

Yes and we need some form of power-sharing or other fudge to resolve it, not the wholesale annexation of part of our territory.

Richard_Tyndall

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.

What about France? Arguably the psychological resonance of France as an empire during the post-war period was even greater because of the occupation of its European heart. At the time the ECSC was created France was fighting a colonial war in Vietnam and Algeria was still part of metropolitan France.

It was entirely possible for the UK to have got involved from the beginning, but we didn't take it seriously enough.

France never gave up much of its Empire. It just turned it into departments of the homeland.

Philip_Thompson

Richard_Tyndall said:

OllyT said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

Brexit was just as much about Remainers inability to convince voters why staying in was to their benefit.

You seem still to be fighting the referendum battle, which rather proves Alastair's point.
Whether or not you find them persuasive, advocates of Remain were, and are quite clear about what they want.

Care to explain the Leave agenda ?

There is no Leave agenda

Leave was a statement by a ,majority of voters that the current system doesnt work for them and that change is needed.

Yes but what "change"?

Peter Kellner had it spot in when commenting on the recent YouGov poll showing Remain 26% ahead of May's deal and 16% of No Deal.

"This pattern is familiar to referendums in different countries: many people support the broad idea of change, but back away when the details are laid out. They want “change”, but not “this change”.

The leave campaigns offered inconsistent and contradictory Brexit outcomes. Very easy to blame all the ills of the "left behind" on the EU. Quite another to come up with remedies. Leavers never had a plan going forward, they still don't and they still arguing amongst themselves about what to do. Gradually people are seeing it for what it is.

Leave had as much of a plan as Remain. The difference being that Leave won. If Remain had won you can be 100% certain that what we would have remained in would very quickly turn out to be nothing like what was promised by Cameron.

There is also the point that the person enacting Leave was not part of the Leave campaign so what she is producing has very little to do with what most Leave voters might have wanted. There were coherent Leave plans but they have never been given a hearing by those in position to actually enact them.

Not least the civil service negotiating this who view Brexit as some disaster to be managed not something to seek out and make the most of.

Beverley_C

Philip_Thompson said:

It is a Remainers form of Brexit. .

That is a complete oxymoron. The Remainer's form of Brexit is cancellation.

Philip_Thompson said:

It is voted for if you consider what was voted for to be a blank cheque.

The referendum said "Leave" or "Remain", not "Leave with the following attributes/rules/objectives".

This is "Leave". It is a Brexit. One of many to be sure, but we are Leaving nonetheless.

JosiasJessop

Gallowgate said:

With all due respect, you may as well have had said nothing at all.

I love my Macbook Pro and iPhone and would not feel comfortable buying any other company’s products in this area.

And that's fair enough - though I'd question why you want to get locked ito one (expensive) vendor in that manner. But don't pretend that they are in any way a good company for the industry, and behave well.

IMO (and it is an opinion) they're not that good for their customers, either.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I would rather be an independent middle-ranking global-facing G7 power than a subordinate to either Washington DC or Brussels. The UK can stand on its own and work with DC and Brussels as and when it suits us without being bound in chains to either.

Except the UK is bound by political reality to maintain an open border for part of its territory with the EU. That creates certain constraints.

Yes and we need some form of power-sharing or other fudge to resolve it, not the wholesale annexation of part of our territory.

The fudge is for the whole UK to stay aligned with the EU.

Philip_Thompson

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is a Remainers form of Brexit. .

That is a complete oxymoron. The Remainer's form of Brexit is cancellation.

Your form of Brexit is cancellation. May and Robbins (both Remainers) form of Brexit is different. BINO.

The rest of your post confirms that you're just saying blank cheque and nothing meaningful.

Gallowgate

This whole endevour just represents the stupidity of a government holding a referendum when it was in favour of the status quo. There should never ever be another referendum without the the government supporting the change and therefore having a clear plan of action following approval.

History will not be kind.

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I would rather be an independent middle-ranking global-facing G7 power than a subordinate to either Washington DC or Brussels. The UK can stand on its own and work with DC and Brussels as and when it suits us without being bound in chains to either.

Except the UK is bound by political reality to maintain an open border for part of its territory with the EU. That creates certain constraints.

Yes and we need some form of power-sharing or other fudge to resolve it, not the wholesale annexation of part of our territory.

The fudge is for the whole UK to stay aligned with the EU.

No more acceptable than demanding the whole of Ireland to stay aligned with the UK. Next.

Nigel_Foremain

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

The Tory party are Remainers? Please recall that Parliament has voted for every pro-Brexit motion so far and Mrs May is busy charging us off a cliff.

The ... negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers ..." meme is, at best, nonsense.

The Tory Party is led by a Remainer yes. The civil service that has conducted the negotiations is led by Remainers yes.

Leavers in the Tory Party have been ostracised away from negotiations. I'm not even sure if there are significant Leavers in the civil service.

And the fact that we are heading a Brexit under Mrs May? Are you complaining about that?

She is delivering Brexit.

She is trying to deliver Brexit at the cost of signing up to let the EU unilaterally and without consent from the people living there economically annex Northern Ireland. Tying our hands in the negotiations in the process. I'm not OK with that.

Get NI voters to back what is being done and I'm fine with what is happening. Alternatively treat the UK as an indivisible block and Brexit properly and I'm fine with that.

It is a form of Brexit. That is what was voted for.

It is a Remainers form of Brexit. It is voted for if you consider what was voted for to be a blank cheque.

Remainers don't have a "form of Brexit" . Brexit is, sorry, what ever a fantasist thinks it is, in the same way Father Christmas means different things to different children. However extreme, it will never be enough for some; disruption, mass unemployment, the breakup of the union with Scotland, whatever, it will all be worth it from the perspective of the die-hard Brexiter. Remainers think it is dumb and pointless, so they do not have a "form of Brexit", and whatever results, it will be owned by those who conned 51% of the population into thinking it was worth it. They should be held accountable.

Richard_Tyndall

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

On topic, I would certainly agree that the EU are not our enemy at present. But I believe Cyclefree makes a mistake in forgetting Palmerston's maxim;

“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”

Too many people regard the EU as our friends. Just like those regarding them as our enemies they are sorely mistaken.

Palmerston's dictum was at the time of our imperial zenith. These days we are rather more exposed, should we decide we don't require allies.

He was not saying we did not need allies. He was recognising that countries rightly have vested interests which preclude permanent friendships. Too many people forget this and are then surprised when a supposed friend starts acting in a way that damages our country.

And how many friendships are permanent anyway ?

I was pointing out the Palmerston was speaking from a position of comparative complacency. Our interests rather more urgently require that we retain allies.

We have allies. Our mistake is to turn them into our masters which is what we have been doing in the EU.

Philip_Thompson

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

The Tory party are Remainers? Please recall that Parliament has voted for every pro-Brexit motion so far and Mrs May is busy charging us off a cliff.

The ... negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers ..." meme is, at best, nonsense.

The Tory Party is led by a Remainer yes. The civil service that has conducted the negotiations is led by Remainers yes.

Leavers in the Tory Party have been ostracised away from negotiations. I'm not even sure if there are significant Leavers in the civil service.

And the fact that we are heading a Brexit under Mrs May? Are you complaining about that?

She is delivering Brexit.

She is trying to deliver Brexit at the cost of signing up to let the EU unilaterally and without consent from the people living there economically annex Northern Ireland. Tying our hands in the negotiations in the process. I'm not OK with that.

Get NI voters to back what is being done and I'm fine with what is happening. Alternatively treat the UK as an indivisible block and Brexit properly and I'm fine with that.

It is a form of Brexit. That is what was voted for.

It is a Remainers form of Brexit. It is voted for if you consider what was voted for to be a blank cheque.

Remainers don't have a "form of Brexit" . Brexit is, sorry, what ever a fantasist thinks it is, in the same way Father Christmas means different things to different children. However extreme, it will never be enough for some; disruption, mass unemployment, the breakup of the union with Scotland, whatever, it will all be worth it from the perspective of the die-hard Brexiter. Remainers think it is dumb and pointless, so they do not have a "form of Brexit", and whatever results, it will be owned by those who conned 51% of the population into thinking it was worth it. They should be held accountable.

May and Robbins are both Remainers. As much as you may imagine otherwise.

Richard_Tyndall

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.

The negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers and EU Remainers.

The Tory party are Remainers? Please recall that Parliament has voted for every pro-Brexit motion so far and Mrs May is busy charging us off a cliff.

The ... negotiations for the deal have been directed by UK Remainers ..." meme is, at best, nonsense.

The Tory Party is led by a Remainer yes. The civil service that has conducted the negotiations is led by Remainers yes.

Leavers in the Tory Party have been ostracised away from negotiations. I'm not even sure if there are significant Leavers in the civil service.

And the fact that we are heading a Brexit under Mrs May? Are you complaining about that?

She is delivering Brexit.

She is trying to deliver Brexit at the cost of signing up to let the EU unilaterally and without consent from the people living there economically annex Northern Ireland. Tying our hands in the negotiations in the process. I'm not OK with that.

Get NI voters to back what is being done and I'm fine with what is happening. Alternatively treat the UK as an indivisible block and Brexit properly and I'm fine with that.

It is a form of Brexit. That is what was voted for.

It is a Remainers form of Brexit. It is voted for if you consider what was voted for to be a blank cheque.

Remainers don't have a "form of Brexit" . Brexit is, sorry, what ever a fantasist thinks it is, in the same way Father Christmas means different things to different children. However extreme, it will never be enough for some; disruption, mass unemployment, the breakup of the union with Scotland, whatever, it will all be worth it from the perspective of the die-hard Brexiter. Remainers think it is dumb and pointless, so they do not have a "form of Brexit", and whatever results, it will be owned by those who conned 51% of the population into thinking it was worth it. They should be held accountable.

And there speaks the voice of a true fanatic.

Richard_Tyndall

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is a Remainers form of Brexit. .

That is a complete oxymoron. The Remainer's form of Brexit is cancellation.

Philip_Thompson said:

It is voted for if you consider what was voted for to be a blank cheque.

The referendum said "Leave" or "Remain", not "Leave with the following attributes/rules/objectives".

This is "Leave". It is a Brexit. One of many to be sure, but we are Leaving nonetheless.

I will agree with you on that when we actually do Leave (and yes May's Leave would of course be Leave). At the moment the jury is definitely out on whether it will happen.

Gallowgate

JosiasJessop said:

Gallowgate said:

With all due respect, you may as well have had said nothing at all.

I love my Macbook Pro and iPhone and would not feel comfortable buying any other company’s products in this area.

And that's fair enough - though I'd question why you want to get locked ito one (expensive) vendor in that manner. But don't pretend that they are in any way a good company for the industry, and behave well.

IMO (and it is an opinion) they're not that good for their customers, either.

I’ve used Apple products for over 15 years and whilst I recognise their support and customer care has declined signficiantly in recent years, it is still far superior for me, as a customer, to be able to go into town, into an Apple shop, years after the warranty has ended to get support and repairs for a reasonable price.

The alternative is sending the product away in a box to China and hoping for the best.

I don’t care if the devices are not repairable by others as long as they work well, get updates for years and years and years and are of good quality.

timmo

The trouble is that the EU has become like an imploding star...
It will disintegrate from within because it is unable to properly see beyond its own self properly.
The people at the heart of it genuinely believe they are at the centre of this planet but they arent.
So the question should really be "What is the EU strategy beyond its borders?"

Gallowgate

@JosiasJessop I admit they have priced me out of the game in the last 12 months. I can’t justify their current prices to myself.

Anazina

Philip_Thompson said:

Anazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

This is what happens when people stop punching the far right.

Ah, incitement to violence. A typical response from the left.

The history of facing down Nazi's without using violence is limited.

No it isn't. We have a proud history in this country of facing down fascists using words not violence.

We defeated other nations fascists using warfare. Our own we defeated democratically.

Genuine Nazis in this country are a rag tag and bobtail, rather than a serious threat.

As are the muppets harassing Soubry yesterday.

No reason we shouldn't face them down in a civilised non-violent manner in the same way as Nick Griffin was faced down until the BNP was eliminated. Or the blackshirts before him.

No need to resort to violence in the streets as grabcocque advocated. That just drags us down to their level.

There is very little difference between UKIP and the BNP, other than that the former march in brogues and the latter in jackboots. UKIP used to be a little more circumspect about the basic racism of a large number of its members and supporters, though that now appears to be becoming more overt. Alan Sked has said that Farage is a racist and that he was in favour of using ex National Front candidates for UKIP. While he has half hearted denied it, I don't think Farage has sued.

Agreed I've often used the nickname 'BNP in blazers' for UKIP but while the BNP were outright racist, UKIP were as you say much more circumspect. Much like today's Labour Party who are clearly led by antisemitic racists but officially deny racism. As a result I would never vote [though wouldn't anyway] for either yesterday's UKIP or today's Labour Party.

UKIP now are turning into an outright racist party and thankfully its share in the polls are still declining and it is turning into once more an inconsequential and irrelevant minor party. No need to punch Kippers in the face as grabcocque advocates when we can beat them at the ballot box.

There was once a kipper on here who was clearly a powellite racist

Yes there was and I frequently argued against him and against his Powell-supporting garbage. Never advocated punching him though.

Indeed. Although that very same individual threatened other posters with violence by proxy on more than one occasion.