If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local spirit there is. Repeat offenders get time in the naughty corner.
Overall I find most people give no fucks outside of official business.
We severely overestimate the impact of Brexit in the rest of the world, it's gone from being something of mild interest to being "call me when it's done".
While we've been navel gazing for the last three years, the rest of the world outside of Europe has moved on and completely lost interest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was a hot topic in France. Now it seems of no interest to anyone. Even the pitiful expressions have gone. France seems to be prospering and despite what we hear even Macron seems liked well enough. A letting agent told me that the Americans are now their biggest customers. Whether for the ambience or to get away from Trump I don't know
File under things you won't see reported in the UK ...
Indeed, Macron is doing well and sitting very pretty in what is a likely run-off against perennial losers the FN.
As you say, you wouldn’t believe it from what you read, among the nasty Francophobe PBers and the blimps and bumpkins in the rightwing press.
There are friends of mine in France who now strongly support Macron.
They were former Gaullists.
Macron has 30 per cent of the vote. But, it would be interested to understand how much of that vote is former Socialists (the party that Macron ostensibly supported before En Marche) and how much Gaullists.
Friends of mine in France who used to support the Socialists can't abide Macron.
You are certainly deluded if you believe Macron is "left wing".
Macron is a former banker and essentially an economic neo-liberalist coupled with neo-conservative diplomatic policy. If he were British then he'd most certainly be a Tory.
If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local spirit there is. Repeat offenders get time in the naughty corner.
Overall I find most people give no fucks outside of official business.
We severely overestimate the impact of Brexit in the rest of the world, it's gone from being something of mild interest to being "call me when it's done".
While we've been navel gazing for the last three years, the rest of the world outside of Europe has moved on and completely lost interest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was a hot topic in France. Now it seems of no interest to anyone. Even the pitiful expressions have gone. France seems to be prospering and despite what we hear even Macron seems liked well enough. A letting agent told me that the Americans are now their biggest customers. Whether for the ambience or to get away from Trump I don't know
File under things you won't see reported in the UK ...
Indeed, Macron is doing well and sitting very pretty in what is a likely run-off against perennial losers the FN.
As you say, you wouldn’t believe it from what you read, among the nasty Francophobe PBers and the blimps and bumpkins in the rightwing press.
There are friends of mine in France who now strongly support Macron.
They were former Gaullists.
Macron has 30 per cent of the vote. But, it would be interested to understand how much of that vote is former Socialists (the party that Macron ostensibly supported before En Marche) and how much Gaullists.
Friends of mine in France who used to support the Socialists can't abide Macron.
You are certainly deluded if you believe Macron is "left wing".
Macron is a former banker and essentially an economic neo-liberalist coupled with neo-conservative diplomatic policy. If he were British then he'd most certainly be a Tory.
If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local spirit there is. Repeat offenders get time in the naughty corner.
Overall I find most people give no fucks outside of official business.
We severely overestimate the impact of Brexit in the rest of the world, it's gone from being something of mild interest to being "call me when it's done".
While we've been navel gazing for the last three years, the rest of the world outside of Europe has moved on and completely lost interest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was a hot topic in France. Now it seems of no interest to anyone. Even the pitiful expressions have gone. France seems to be prospering and despite what we hear even Macron seems liked well enough. A letting agent told me that the Americans are now their biggest customers. Whether for the ambience or to get away from Trump I don't know
File under things you won't see reported in the UK ...
Indeed, Macron is doing well and sitting very pretty in what is a likely run-off against perennial losers the FN.
As you say, you wouldn’t believe it from what you read, among the nasty Francophobe PBers and the blimps and bumpkins in the rightwing press.
There are friends of mine in France who now strongly support Macron.
They were former Gaullists.
Macron has 30 per cent of the vote. But, it would be interested to understand how much of that vote is former Socialists (the party that Macron ostensibly supported before En Marche) and how much Gaullists.
Friends of mine in France who used to support the Socialists can't abide Macron.
You are certainly deluded if you believe Macron is "left wing".
Macron is a former banker and essentially an economic neo-liberalist coupled with neo-conservative diplomatic policy. If he were British then he'd most certainly be a Tory.
So few anticipated the 2008 crash that they made a rather brilliant film about it. Keeping our housing market relatively stable was an absolutely essential element of keeping our banks solvent thereafter. If house prices had fallen 30% after 2010 no bank would have survived without further capital inputs from the State. Latterly his tax policies made BTL much less attractive which is desirable if home ownership is to be more widespread.
The policy of encouraging foreign investment when we were struggling to make adequate investment ourselves made sense if you wished to keep the economy growing/stable which he did. Had we done that internally there would have been a major reduction in consumption leading to a significant recession and loss of employment. You can make the argument that that is something we needed to do but no one can argue that Osborne's pro-employment policies have not worked beyond his wildest dreams. The terms of that investment were of course a matter for the decision makers at the time.
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local spirit there is. Repeat offenders get time in the naughty corner.
Overall I find most people give no fucks outside of official business.
We severely overestimate the impact of Brexit in the rest of the world, it's gone from being something of mild interest to being "call me when it's done".
While we've been navel gazing for the last three years, the rest of the world outside of Europe has moved on and completely lost interest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was a hot topic in France. Now it seems of no interest to anyone. Even the pitiful expressions have gone. France seems to be prospering and despite what we hear even Macron seems liked well enough. A letting agent told me that the Americans are now their biggest customers. Whether for the ambience or to get away from Trump I don't know
File under things you won't see reported in the UK ...
Indeed, Macron is doing well and sitting very pretty in what is a likely run-off against perennial losers the FN.
As you say, you wouldn’t believe it from what you read, among the nasty Francophobe PBers and the blimps and bumpkins in the rightwing press.
There are friends of mine in France who now strongly support Macron.
They were former Gaullists.
Macron has 30 per cent of the vote. But, it would be interested to understand how much of that vote is former Socialists (the party that Macron ostensibly supported before En Marche) and how much Gaullists.
Friends of mine in France who used to support the Socialists can't abide Macron.
You are certainly deluded if you believe Macron is "left wing".
Macron is a former banker and essentially an economic neo-liberalist coupled with neo-conservative diplomatic policy. If he were British then he'd most certainly be a Tory.
He’s pro-EU!!
So? Loads of our MPs are.
He’d be one of those you call traitors.
No doubt about it, but he'd still be a Tory. His policies are positively Thatcherite.
So few anticipated the 2008 crash that they made a rather brilliant film about it. Keeping our housing market relatively stable was an absolutely essential element of keeping our banks solvent thereafter. If house prices had fallen 30% after 2010 no bank would have survived without further capital inputs from the State. Latterly his tax policies made BTL much less attractive which is desirable if home ownership is to be more widespread.
The policy of encouraging foreign investment when we were struggling to make adequate investment ourselves made sense if you wished to keep the economy growing/stable which he did. Had we done that internally there would have been a major reduction in consumption leading to a significant recession and loss of employment. You can make the argument that that is something we needed to do but no one can argue that Osborne's pro-employment policies have not worked beyond his wildest dreams. The terms of that investment were of course a matter for the decision makers at the time.
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
Also on foreign experience, I find that the people most interested in Brexit are Germans. Most are pretty anti, they are worried that losing the UK from the EU will be bad for the pro-market agenda. The conclusion for most Germans seems to be that brexit will leave both sides weaker and less relevant globally. The EU loses a nuclear power and UN security council member, the UK loses the heft of the EU to push it's diplomatic agenda. Another concern is that once the UK does take up WTO membership and gets seats on standards setting boards it will no longer just acquiesce to EU requirements and may push for more global alignment with the US.
My experience is that most people are bemused and/or amused.
I find disappointment to be the most common reaction from Europeans. From everyone else it's usually "who really cares".
Yep - most non-Europeans I come across work-wise think we’re stupid, but don’t really care.
Peter Hitchens: What if David Cameron had never been Prime Minister?: How one childish, vain slippery politician is to blame for this whole sorry Brexit mess
"If Mr Brown had won in 2010, I suspect the country would be in better shape by far than it is now, while Jeremy Corbyn would still be quietly growing marrows in his North London allotment, a forgotten fringe figure."
So few anticipated the 2008 crash that they made a rather brilliant film about it. Keeping our housing market relatively stable was an absolutely essential element of keeping our banks solvent thereafter. If house prices had fallen 30% after 2010 no bank would have survived without further capital inputs from the State. Latterly his tax policies made BTL much less attractive which is desirable if home ownership is to be more widespread.
The policy of encouraging foreign investment when we were struggling to make adequate investment ourselves made sense if you wished to keep the economy growing/stable which he did. Had we done that internally there would have been a major reduction in consumption leading to a significant recession and loss of employment. You can make the argument that that is something we needed to do but no one can argue that Osborne's pro-employment policies have not worked beyond his wildest dreams. The terms of that investment were of course a matter for the decision makers at the time.
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
So few anticipated the 2008 crash that they made a rather brilliant film about it. Keeping our housing market relatively stable was an absolutely essential element of keeping our banks solvent thereafter. If house prices had fallen 30% after 2010 no bank would have survived without further capital inputs from the State. Latterly his tax policies made BTL much less attractive which is desirable if home ownership is to be more widespread.
The policy of encouraging foreign investment when we were struggling to make adequate investment ourselves made sense if you wished to keep the economy growing/stable which he did. Had we done that internally there would have been a major reduction in consumption leading to a significant recession and loss of employment. You can make the argument that that is something we needed to do but no one can argue that Osborne's pro-employment policies have not worked beyond his wildest dreams. The terms of that investment were of course a matter for the decision makers at the time.
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
Wouldn't that be he 8th job?
Yes, it seems that @another_richard's view of Osborne is not widely shared. He would need to give up quite a few of these and I am not sure that he would but he might if Gove, as PM, asked him to.
If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local spirit there is. Repeat offenders get time in the naughty corner.
Overall I find most people give no fucks outside of official business.
We severely overestimate the impact of Brexit in the rest of the world, it's gone from being something of mild interest to being "call me when it's done".
While we've been navel gazing for the last three years, the rest of the world outside of Europe has moved on and completely lost interest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was a hot topic in France. Now itfor the ambience or to get away from Trump I don't know
File under things you won't see reported in the UK ...
Indeed, Macron is doing well and sitting very pretty in what is a likely run-off against perennial losers the FN.
As youhe rightwing press.
There are friends of mine in France who now strongly support Macron.
They were former Gaullists.
Macron has 30 per cent of the vote. But, it would be interested to understand how much of that vote is former Socialists (the party that Macron ostensibly supported before En Marche) and how much Gaullists.
Friends of mine in France who used to support the Socialists can't abide Macron.
You are certainly deluded if you believe Macron is "left wing".
Macron is a former banker and essentially an economic neo-liberalist coupled with neo-conservative diplomatic policy. If he were British then he'd most certainly be a Tory.
He’s pro-EU!!
So? Loads of our MPs are.
He’d be one of those you call traitors.
No doubt about it, but he'd still be a Tory. His policies are positively Thatcherite.
Some are. Like HYUFD says, he’s an Orange Booker. There’d be no place for him in today’s Conservative party. He’d probably also have been at home in New Labour.
Please make it stop. You are embarrassing yourself today.
You're back?
What a shame. I hoped you'd been banned for good. You were an utterly toxic presence on this site.
Let's hope you've learned your lesson.
I disagree with you on absolutely everything at the most fundamental level possible. However you do usually form your arguments with a pithy precision I can respect. This isn't that.
To make the Customs Union permanent not temporary as under May's Deal
This is my major annoyance with the “People’s vote” crowd. They want to remain and see it as the only way to achieve that. I wish they would be honest. We had a People’s vote and it was Leave.
If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local spirit there is. Repeat offenders get time in the naughty corner.
Overall I find most people give no fucks outside of official business.
We severely overestimate the impact of Brexit in the rest of the world, it's gone from being something of mild interest to being "call me when it's done".
While we've been navel gazing for the last three years, the rest of the world outside of Europe has moved on and completely lost interest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was a hot topic in France. Now it seems of no interest to anyone. Even the pitiful expressions have gone. France seems to be prospering and despite what we hear even Macron seems liked well enough. A letting agent told me that the Americans are now their biggest customers. Whether for the ambience or to get away from Trump I don't know
Good for him. I'm sure when everyone in France talks about May and Brexit they always remember to point out May is leading in some polls, level or only just behind in others.
And also talk about the weekly demos and riots in all of the UK major cities for the past 3 months.....
So few anticipated the 2008 crash that they made a rather brilliant film about it. Keeping our housing market relatively stable was an absolutely essential element of keeping our banks solvent thereafter. If house prices had fallen 30% after 2010 no bank would have survived without further capital inputs from the State. Latterly his tax policies made BTL much less attractive which is desirable if home ownership is to be more widespread.
The policy of encouraging foreign investment when we were struggling to make adequate investment ourselves made sense if you wished to keep the economy growing/stable which he did. Had we done that internally there would have been a major reduction in consumption leading to a significant recession and loss of employment. You can make the argument that that is something we needed to do but no one can argue that Osborne's pro-employment policies have not worked beyond his wildest dreams. The terms of that investment were of course a matter for the decision makers at the time.
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
Provided he would do it purely in the interests of the UK, rather than negotiating an EU-friendly BINO before accepting another well paid job working as an advisor for the Commission?
So few anticipated the 2008 crash that they made a rather brilliant film about it. Keeping our housing market relatively stable was an absolutely essential element of keeping our banks solvent thereafter. If house prices had fallen 30% after 2010 no bank would have survived without further capital inputs from the State. Latterly his tax policies made BTL much less attractive which is desirable if home ownership is to be more widespread.
The policy of encouraging foreign investment when we were struggling to make adequate investment ourselves made sense if you wished to keep the economy growing/stable which he did. Had we done that internally there would have been a major reduction in consumption leading to a significant recession and loss of employment. You can make the argument that that is something we needed to do but no one can argue that Osborne's pro-employment policies have not worked beyond his wildest dreams. The terms of that investment were of course a matter for the decision makers at the time.
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
They were mistakes which some of us pointed out at the time ** only to be told that they must be good policies because Cameron had a high approval rating from Conservative voters.
As I said before we need people who are capable of long term strategic thinking rather than an obsession with short term tactics.
** This actually happened I remember a discussion here between us early in 2011, how time flies on PB.
So few anticipated the 2008 crash that they made a rather brilliant film about it. Keeping our housing market relatively stable was an absolutely essential element of keeping our banks solvent thereafter. If house prices had fallen 30% after 2010 no bank would have survived without further capital inputs from the State. Latterly his tax policies made BTL much less attractive which is desirable if home ownership is to be more widespread.
The policy of encouraging foreign investment when we were struggling to make adequate investment ourselves made sense if you wished to keep the economy growing/stable which he did. Had we done that internally there would have been a major reduction in consumption leading to a significant recession and loss of employment. You can make the argument that that is something we needed to do but no one can argue that Osborne's pro-employment policies have not worked beyond his wildest dreams. The terms of that investment were of course a matter for the decision makers at the time.
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
Provided he would do it purely in the interests of the UK, rather than negotiating an EU-friendly BINO before accepting another well paid job working as an advisor for the Commission?
Yes and the same with Mandelson. But I have no doubt that they are both patriots who have given years of genuine service to their country.
If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local spirit there is. Repeat offenders get time in the naughty corner.
Overall I find most people give no fucks outside of official business.
We severely overestimate the impact of Brexit in the rest of the world, it's gone from being something of mild interest to being "call me when it's done".
While we've been navel gazing for the last three years, the rest of the world outside of Europe has moved on and completely lost interest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was ay from Trump I don't know
File under things you won't see reported in the UK ...
Indeed, Macron is doing well and sitting very pretty in what is a likely run-off against perennial losers the FN.
As you say, you wouldn’t believe it from what you read, among the nasty Francophobe PBers and the blimps and bumpkins in the rightwing press.
There are friends of mine in France who now strongly support Macron.
They were former Gaullists.
Macron has 30 per cent of the vote. But, it would be interested to understand how much of that vote is former Socialists (the party that Macron ostensibly supported before En Marche) and how much Gaullists.
Friends of mine in France who used to support the Socialists can't abide Macron.
You are certainly deluded if you believe Macron is "left wing".
Macron is a former banker and essentially an economic neo-liberalist coupled with neo-conservative diplomatic policy. If he were British then he'd most certainly be a Tory.
He’s pro-EU!!
So? Loads of our MPs are.
He’d be one of those you call traitors.
No doubt about it, but he'd still be a Tory. His policies are positively Thatcherite.
Macron would not be a Tory, En Marche is affiliated to the ALDE group of European Liberals in the European Parliament not the centre right EPP the Tories were affiliated with or the ECR group they are now affiliated with.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local spirit there is. Repeat offenders get time in the naughty corner.
Overall I find most people give no fucks outside of official business.
We severely overestimate the impact of Brexit in the rest of the world, it's gone from being something of mild interest to being "call me when it's done".
While we've been navel gazing for the last three years, the rest of the world outside of Europe has moved on and completely lost interest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was a hot topic in France. Now itfor the ambience or to get away from Trump I don't know
File under things you won't see reported in the UK ...
Indeed, Macron is doing well and sitting very pretty in what is a likely run-off against perennial losers the FN.
As youhe rightwing press.
There are friends of mine in France who now strongly support Macron.
They were former Gaullists.
Macron has 30 per cent of the vote. But, it would be interested to understand how much of that vote is former Socialists (the party that Macron ostensibly supported before En Marche) and how much Gaullists.
Friends of mine in France who used to support the Socialists can't abide Macron.
You are certainly deluded if you believe Macron is "left wing".
Macron is a former banker and essentially an economic neo-liberalist coupled with neo-conservative diplomatic policy. If he were British then he'd most certainly be a Tory.
He’s pro-EU!!
So? Loads of our MPs are.
He’d be one of those you call traitors.
No doubt about it, but he'd still be a Tory. His policies are positively Thatcherite.
Some are. Like HYUFD says, he’s an Orange Booker. There’d be no place for him in today’s Conservative party. He’d probably also have been at home in New Labour.
No, the Lib Dems are too limp wristed and would be nowhere near the corridors of power. I could see him in Tony's Labour party, but realistically he'd have to be a Tory with his policies and background.
If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local spirit there is. Repeat offenders get time in the naughty corner.
Overall I find most people give no fucks outside of official business.
We severely overestimate the impact of Brexit in the rest of the world, it's gone from being something of mild interest to being "call me when it's done".
While we've been navel gazing for the last three years, the rest of the world outside of Europe has moved on and completely lost interest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was a hot topic in France. Now itfor the ambience or to get away from Trump I don't know
File under things you won't see reported in the UK ...
Indeed, Macron is doing well and sitting very pretty in what is a likely run-off against perennial losers the FN.
As youhe rightwing press.
There are friends of mine in France who now strongly support Macron.
They were former Gaullists.
Macron has 30 per cent of the vote. But, it would be interested to understand how much of that vote is former Socialists (the party that Macron ostensibly supported before En Marche) and how much Gaullists.
Friends of mine in France who used to support the Socialists can't abide Macron.
You are certainly deluded if you believe Macron is "left wing".
Macron is a former banker and essentially an economic neo-liberalist coupled with neo-conservative diplomatic policy. If he were British then he'd most certainly be a Tory.
He’s pro-EU!!
So? Loads of our MPs are.
He’d be one of those you call traitors.
No doubt about it, but he'd still be a Tory. His policies are positively Thatcherite.
Some are. Like HYUFD says, he’s an Orange Booker. There’d be no place for him in today’s Conservative party. He’d probably also have been at home in New Labour.
Agreed, he would be a Coalition Orange Booker or prior to that New Labour
So few anticipated the 2008 crash that they made a rather brilliant film about it. Keeping our housing market relatively stable was an absolutely essential element of keeping our banks solvent thereafter. If house prices had fallen 30% after 2010 no bank would have survived without further capital inputs from the State. Latterly his tax policies made BTL much less attractive which is desirable if home ownership is to be more widespread.
The policy of encouraging foreign investment when we were struggling to make adequate investment ourselves made sense if you wished to keep the economy growing/stable which he did. Had we done that internally there would have been a major reduction in consumption leading to a significant recession and loss of employment. You can make the argument that that is something we needed to do but no one can argue that Osborne's pro-employment policies have not worked beyond his wildest dreams. The terms of that investment were of course a matter for the decision makers at the time.
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
Provided he would do it purely in the interests of the UK, rather than negotiating an EU-friendly BINO before accepting another well paid job working as an advisor for the Commission?
Yes and the same with Mandelson. But I have no doubt that they are both patriots who have given years of genuine service to their country.
Osborne I could get on board with, Mandy would sell us out faster than he'd sell out his own grandmother.
So few anticipated the 2008 crash that they made a rather brilliant film about it. Keeping our housing market relatively stable was an absolutely essential element of keeping our banks solvent thereafter. If house prices had fallen 30% after 2010 no bank would have survived without further capital inputs from the State. Latterly his tax policies made BTL much less attractive which is desirable if home ownership is to be more widespread.
The policy of encouraging foreign investment when we were struggling to make adequate investment ourselves made sense if you wished to keep the economy growing/stable which he did. Had we done that internally there would have been a major reduction in consumption leading to a significant recession and loss of employment. You can make the argument that that is something we needed to do but no one can argue that Osborne's pro-employment policies have not worked beyond his wildest dreams. The terms of that investment were of course a matter for the decision makers at the time.
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while homion to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
They were mistakes which some of us pointed out at the time ** only to be told that they must be good policies because Cameron had a high approval rating from Conservative voters.
As I said before we need people who are capable of long term strategic thinking rather than an obsession with short term tactics.
** This actually happened I remember a discussion here between us early in 2011, how time flies on PB.
and lets not fotget his serial dabbling in everything rather than do the day job, like reform taxes, or invest in infrastructure
...given Parliament may well vote to extend Article 50 and rule out No Deal this week...
As I mentioned last night, I intend to place a bet to insure against a no-deal Brexit. If Parliament does vote to ask for an extension that will affect the odds drastically and I will lose (more) money. Do you have any basis for this assertion? I'll take rumour but I need a named source.
If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local spirit there is. Repeat offenders get time in the naughty corner.
Overall I find most people give no fucks outside of official business.
We severely overestimate the impact of Brexit in the rest of the world, it's gone from being something of mild interest to being "call me when it's done".
While we've been navel gazing for the last three years, the rest of the world outside of Europe has moved on and completely lost interest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was a hot topic in France. Now itfor the ambience or to get away from Trump I don't know
File under things you won't see reported in the UK ...
Indeed, Macron is doing well and sitting very pretty in what is a likely run-off against perennial losers the FN.
As youhe rightwing press.
There are friends of mine in France who now strongly support Macron.
They were former Gaullists.
Macron has 30 per cent of the vote. But, it would be interested to understand how much of that vote is former Socialists (the party that Macron ostensibly supported before En Marche) and how much Gaullists.
Friends of mine in France who used to support the Socialists can't abide Macron.
You are certainly deluded if you believe Macron is "left wing".
Macron is a former banker and essentially an economic neo-liberalist coupled with neo-conservative diplomatic policy. If he were British then he'd most certainly be a Tory.
He’s pro-EU!!
So? Loads of our MPs are.
He’d be one of those you call traitors.
No doubt about it, but he'd still be a Tory. His policies are positively Thatcherite.
Some are. Like HYUFD says, he’s an Orange Booker. There’d be no place for him in today’s Conservative party. He’d probably also have been at home in New Labour.
Agreed, he would be a Coalition Orange Booker or prior to that New Labour
I would see myself as a bit of an Orange booker, however i slip into the old style tory madness now and then.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
I could imagine an 80s version of Macron delivering this.
It's your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer.
Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep.
It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real.
To make the Customs Union permanent not temporary as under May's Deal
This is my major annoyance with the “People’s vote” crowd. They want to remain and see it as the only way to achieve that. I wish they would be honest. We had a People’s vote and it was Leave.
Maybe but Leavers too are not fully united on what we were leaving too
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
Wouldn't that be he 8th job?
Yes, it seems that @another_richard's view of Osborne is not widely shared. He would need to give up quite a few of these and I am not sure that he would but he might if Gove, as PM, asked him to.
Why on earth would George Osborne, who has counselled against every step of this shambles and for his pains has been the object of some of the most intense abuse from the death cult, feel inclined to sort out the fiasco when every constructive measure he might propose will result in him receiving dog’s abuse?
Macron would not be a Tory, En Marche is affiliated to the ALDE group of European Liberals in the European Parliament not the centre right EPP the Tories were affiliated with or the ECR group they are now affiliated with.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
You're talking about allegiances on an outward basis. The core of the man is a neo-liberal economist with neo-conservative foreign policy. You really don't get much more Tory than that.
On Russian, the forces used to teach Russian, spies for the use of. There is a book, Secret Classrooms, by Elliott and Shukman, which I am holding up to the webcam now.
Review extracts from Amazon:
'Here is a vivacious account of how in the 1950s, under Eden and Lloyd at the Foreign Office, some 5,000 young men doing national service were quietly siphoned off from their units, secluded in Cornwall and Fifeshire, or, more boldly, next door to the Guards depot at Coulsdon in Surrey, and put through crash courses in Russian till they could speak it fluently ...' M. R. D. Foot, Spectator
Lambasted by the Soviets as a 'spy school', the Joint Services School for Linguists (JSSL) was a major Cold War initiative, which pushed 5000 young National Servicemen through intensive training as Russian translators and interpreters, primarily to meet the needs of Britain's signals intelligence operations. Its pupils included a remarkable cross-section of talented young men who went on to a diversity of glittering careers: professors of Russian, Chinese, ancient philosophy, economics; the historian Sir Martin Gilbert; authors such as Alan Bennett, Dennis Potter and Michael Frayn; screenwriter Jack Rosenthal; stage director Sir Peter Hall; and churchmen ranging from a bishop to a displaced Carmelite friar.
Geoffrey Elliot and Harold Shukman, both of whom emerged from JSSL as interpreters, have drawn on many personal recollections and interviews with fellow students, as well as once highly classified documents in the Public Record Office, in order to reveal this fascinating story for the first time.
'An engaging, quirky account of this strange offshoot of the Cold War ... a kind of Virgin Soldiers for clever clogs.' Michael Leapman, Independent
Dennis Potter's Lipstick on your Collar was about RAF Russian translaters, come to think of it.
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
They were mistakes which some of us pointed out at the time ** only to be told that they must be good policies because Cameron had a high approval rating from Conservative voters.
As I said before we need people who are capable of long term strategic thinking rather than an obsession with short term tactics.
** This actually happened I remember a discussion here between us early in 2011, how time flies on PB.
A discussion with me? I never defended either policy although I did see the political impetus for a minority government. Sometimes time seems to pass quickly because the conversation never moves on.
We have seen this in the UK, where Labour was once highly Eurosceptic and went to the country in 1982 wanting to withdraw.
We have seen many parties change their mind on the EU depending on how the political wind blows (Sinn Fein, the SNP, The Tories, the Labour Party).
The EU is about getting your way. France does very well out of the EU (both financially, and in terms of influence). It gets its way a lot.
The UK does not do very well out of the EU (partly because we were always very ambivalent about membership).
I think if we were doing so well out of the EU as France was, the Tories would be much more in favour.
Yes, on a transactional basis it feels like the club membership which you only ever use the gym, and there's a whole series of after hours parties that you never get invited to (or never really fancy attending.
If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local spirit there is. Repeat offenders get time in the naughty corner.
Overall I find most people give no fucks outside of official business.
We severely overestimate the impact of Brexit in the rest of the world, it's gone from being something of mild interest to being "call me when it's done".
While we've been navel gazing for the last three years, the rest of the world outside of Europe has moved on and completely lost interest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was a hot topic in France. Now itfor the ambience or to get away from Trump I don't know
File under things you won't see reported in the UK ...
Indeed, Macron is doing well and sitting very pretty in what is a likely run-off against perennial losers the FN.
As youhe rightwing press.
There are friends of mine in France who ron is "left wing".
Macron is a former banker and essentially an economic neo-liberalist coupled with neo-conservative diplomatic policy. If he were British then he'd most certainly be a Tory.
He’s pro-EU!!
So? Loads of our MPs are.
He’d be one of those you call traitors.
No doubt about it, but he'd still be a Tory. His policies are positively Thatcherite.
Some are. Like HYUFD says, he’s an Orange Booker. There’d be no place for him in today’s Conservative party. He’d probably also have been at home in New Labour.
No, the Lib Dems are too limp wristed and would be nowhere near the corridors of power. I could see him in Tony's Labour party, but realistically he'd have to be a Tory with his policies and background.
No his policies match very closely those the LDs pursued when in Government from 2010 to 2015 unless you were asleep during those years.
Macron is pro EU and a social liberal, not a natural Tory as I said. If Macron was a conservative he would be in Les Republicans not En Marche
Cooper on Marr is it? I wonder if she'll have a decent answer as to why after this much time they won't be able to reach a conclusion on Brexit but yet more time means they will. Thoroughly dishonest person. Remain is an honourable position to hold, just state it openly, not this remain by the backdoor business.
It is painful, listening to the linguistic contortions of MPs who simply want to remain, but it is understandable. Almost all of them were elected on a manifesto of delivering brexit and voted for the triggering of article 50. Many of them are also on the record as saying that the 2016 referendum result must be honoured. They know there is no way to square all of that with remain.
...given Parliament may well vote to extend Article 50 and rule out No Deal this week...
As I mentioned last night, I intend to place a bet to insure against a no-deal Brexit. If Parliament does vote to ask for an extension that will affect the odds drastically and I will lose (more) money. Do you have any basis for this assertion? I'll take rumour but I need a named source.
We will know once Parliament has voted on all the amendment's, including Cooper's and Spelman's, on extending Article 50 and ruling out No Deal this week. No need for rumour
If we're talking about overseas experiences, I currently spend about 10% of my existence in airports (going for that GGL status!). The rule has generally becomes the first person to mention the B word outside of meetings does a shot of whatever local erest.
It's rather sad. Two years ago it was a hot topic in France. Now itfor the ambience or to get away from Trump I don't know
File under things you won't see reported in the UK ...
Indeed, Macron is doing well and sitting very pretty in what is a likely run-off against perennial losers the FN.
As youhe rightwing press.
There are friends of mine in France who now strongly support Macron.
They were former Gaullists.
Macron has 30 per cent of the vote. But, it would be interested to understand how much of that vote is former Socialists (the party that Macron ostensibly supported before En Marche) and how much Gaullists.
Friends of mine in France who used to support the Socialists can't abide Macron.
You are certainly deluded if you believe Macron is "left wing".
Macron is a former banker and essentially an economic neo-liberalist coupled with neo-conservative diplomatic policy. If he were British then he'd most certainly be a Tory.
He’s pro-EU!!
So? Loads of our MPs are.
He’d be one of those you call traitors.
No doubt about it, but he'd still be a Tory. His policies are positively Thatcherite.
Some are. Like HYUFD says, he’s an Orange Booker. There’d be no place for him in today’s Conservative party. He’d probably also have been at home in New Labour.
Agreed, he would be a Coalition Orange Booker or prior to that New Labour
I would see myself as a bit of an Orange booker, however i slip into the old style tory madness now and then.
Orange Booker are close to many on the left of the Tory Party but further apart from those in the centre of the Tory Party and miles apart from those on the right of the Tory Party
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
I could imagine an 80s version of Macron delivering this.
It's your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer.
Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep.
It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
Provided he would do it purely in the interests of the UK, rather than negotiating an EU-friendly BINO before accepting another well paid job working as an advisor for the Commission?
Yes and the same with Mandelson. But I have no doubt that they are both patriots who have given years of genuine service to their country.
Osborne I could get on board with, Mandy would sell us out faster than he'd sell out his own grandmother.
Firstly, I don't think so. Secondly, we cannot repeat the mistake of doing this as some internal Tory project as we have for the last 2 years. We need to try to work together. I am not sure how useful he would actually be but I would invite Nick Clegg too. The deal needs to be negotiated in the national interest and as much of the country as possible, whether formerly leave or remain, needs to be brought along with it. Ed Balls would be another possibility.
We have seen this in the UK, where Labour was once highly Eurosceptic and went to the country in 1982 wanting to withdraw.
We have seen many parties change their mind on the EU depending on how the political wind blows (Sinn Fein, the SNP, The Tories, the Labour Party).
The EU is about getting your way. France does very well out of the EU (both financially, and in terms of influence). It gets its way a lot.
The UK does not do very well out of the EU (partly because we were always very ambivalent about membership).
I think if we were doing so well out of the EU as France was, the Tories would be much more in favour.
Yes, on a transactional basis it feels like the club membership which you only ever use the gym, and there's a whole series of after hours parties that you never get invited to (or never really fancy attending.
So you don't want to go to these parties but you still want to be invited?
BREXIT!!! ('cos it would have been nice to be asked)
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
Wouldn't that be he 8th job?
Yes, it seems that @another_richard's view of Osborne is not widely shared. He would need to give up quite a few of these and I am not sure that he would but he might if Gove, as PM, asked him to.
Why on earth would George Osborne, who has counselled against every step of this shambles and for his pains has been the object of some of the most intense abuse from the death cult, feel inclined to sort out the fiasco when every constructive measure he might propose will result in him receiving dog’s abuse?
He may not. But he is the best we have got and that is what the job needs.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
I could imagine an 80s version of Macron delivering this.
It's your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer.
Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep.
It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real.
So could Nick Clegg or Tony Blair
So could Tessy pre 2016 (apart from being incapable of making any leap into vaguely sincere or impassioned rhetoric).
Macron would not be a Tory, En Marche is affiliated to the ALDE group of European Liberals in the European Parliament not the centre right EPP the Tories were affiliated with or the ECR group they are now affiliated with.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
You're talking about allegiances on an outward basis. The core of the man is a neo-liberal economist with neo-conservative foreign policy. You really don't get much more Tory than that.
Neo-liberalism is by its very definition a liberal not a conservative policy and Orange Book LDs happlily pursued neoliberal economics in the Coalition government and Macron opposed the Iraq War so is not a neo-conservative either. Macron is also very pro EU and anti Brexit and very socially liberal. You really don't get more LD than that
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
Provided he would do it purely in the interests of the UK, rather than negotiating an EU-friendly BINO before accepting another well paid job working as an advisor for the Commission?
Yes and the same with Mandelson. But I have no doubt that they are both patriots who have given years of genuine service to their country.
Osborne I could get on board with, Mandy would sell us out faster than he'd sell out his own grandmother.
Firstly, I don't think so. Secondly, we cannot repeat the mistake of doing this as some internal Tory project as we have for the last 2 years. We need to try to work together. I am not sure how useful he would actually be but I would invite Nick Clegg too. The deal needs to be negotiated in the national interest and as much of the country as possible, whether formerly leave or remain, needs to be brought along with it. Ed Balls would be another possibility.
Oh and just glancing over at an ST article. Apparently we have plans for invoking martial law. Brexit really is going swimmingly.
*if* there is rioting in the streets
I would be very surprised - Brexit or no Brexit - if there wasn’t a contingency plan somewhere in a drawer on martial law to quell rioting
Especially how piss poor the authorities were with dealing with the rioting in 2010. There was clearly no real plans of how to deal with widespread disorder. I would have hoped the government / MET had since devised plans (regardless of brexit) in the case that there was some attempt at a repeat.
Those riots were organised by blackberry messenger... That really makes me feel old... A whole technology has been and gone, and I didnt partake in it.
Macron would not be a Tory, En Marche is affiliated to the ALDE group of European Liberals in the European Parliament not the centre right EPP the Tories were affiliated with or the ECR group they are now affiliated with.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
You're talking about allegiances on an outward basis. The core of the man is a neo-liberal economist with neo-conservative foreign policy. You really don't get much more Tory than that.
That is often how the Conservatives present themselves as, but it certainly isn't the case now under May and (I assume) it will not be the case going forward. If trends continue the next Conservative administrations will be statist, interventionist, Eurosceptic and protectionist . Euroscepticism (pre-Brexit) and Brexit (going forward) have changed the political alignments.
...given Parliament may well vote to extend Article 50 and rule out No Deal this week...
As I mentioned last night, I intend to place a bet to insure against a no-deal Brexit. If Parliament does vote to ask for an extension that will affect the odds drastically and I will lose (more) money. Do you have any basis for this assertion? I'll take rumour but I need a named source.
We will know once Parliament has voted on all the amendment's, including Cooper's and Spelman's, on extending Article 50 and ruling out No Deal this week. No need for rumour
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject.
Norway was closed off by a campaign of xenophobic lies. Arguing for it now is the dishonest Leavers’ attempt to have their cake and eat it; just another group who want compromise on their own terms.
you have a very bad case on Adonisitis
see a doctor
It’s weird. A Norway style agreement is a reasonable compromise. Yet remainers and leavers reject it most forcefully. For the bulk of people, for the bulk of their experience, been in the EEA but out of the customs union will ree movement of labour and mutual recognition of rights.
The Eu keep us in their influence, they’ll be happy with that, citizens can rs that other member states will be putting up as soon as we are off. We can chase the magical unicorns of trade deals if we so wish.
It is Cakism, in the sense that that is what other states like Norway Iceland and Switzerland already have.
It also largely puts to bed the whole damn thing. Norway as an end point not a step on a journey.
May is dying in a ditch to end free movement when Labour, who have never met an immigrant they haven’t wanted to shower with money will abandon as soon as they take control.
It’s cakism because it is the polar opposite of what Leave campaigned for. But you like it so you hope everyone is going to forget that inconvenient fact.
Leave are not a government. They were a campaigning group. A group that no government should consider themselves bound by. The result was to leave, that’s it, leave. You can use whatever inference you want.
I voted leave, but made no assumption that we would be leaving the single market. I didn’t think any pm would be irresponsible enough to do so. I don’t like the EU, but I don’t want to stop buying and selling widgets with them as easily as we currently do. I never cheerleaded the leave campaign, supported them or delivered a leaflet for them.
Tough shit then. You’re as buggered as the rest of us by the Leave campaign but you were dumb enough to vote for it.
Macron would not be a Tory, En Marche is affiliated to the ALDE group of European Liberals in the European Parliament not the centre right EPP the Tories were affiliated with or the ECR group they are now affiliated with.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
You're talking about allegiances on an outward basis. The core of the man is a neo-liberal economist with neo-conservative foreign policy. You really don't get much more Tory than that.
That is often how the Conservatives present themselves as, but it certainly isn't the case now under May and (I assume) it will not be the case going forward. If trends continue the next Conservative administrations will be statist, interventionist, Eurosceptic and protectionist . Euroscepticism (pre-Brexit) and Brexit (going forward) have changed the political alignments.
These days Tony Benn would have joined the Tory party and sat with the ERG.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
I could imagine an 80s version of Macron delivering this.
It's your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer.
Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep.
It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real.
So could Nick Clegg or Tony Blair
So could Tessy pre 2016 (apart from being incapable of making any leap into vaguely sincere or impassioned rhetoric).
Tessy has always been an immigration sceptic though
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
Provided he would do it purely in the interests of the UK, rather than negotiating an EU-friendly BINO before accepting another well paid job working as an advisor for the Commission?
Yes and the same with Mandelson. But I have no doubt that they are both patriots who have given years of genuine service to their country.
Osborne I could get on board with, Mandy would sell us out faster than he'd sell out his own grandmother.
Firstly, I don't think so. Secondly, we cannot repeat the mistake of doing this as some internal Tory project as we have for the last 2 years. We need to try to work together. I am not sure how useful he would actually be but I would invite Nick Clegg too. The deal needs to be negotiated in the national interest and as much of the country as possible, whether formerly leave or remain, needs to be brought along with it. Ed Balls would be another possibility.
Soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
I've never disagreed with this on you Alastair. I may, in fairness, have reacted to your huffiness with some of my own on occasions.
We have seen this in the UK, where Labour was once highly Eurosceptic and went to the country in 1982 wanting to withdraw.
We have seen many parties change their mind on the EU depending on how the political wind blows (Sinn Fein, the SNP, The Tories, the Labour Party).
The EU is about getting your way. France does very well out of the EU (both financially, and in terms of influence). It gets its way a lot.
The UK does not do very well out of the EU (partly because we were always very ambivalent about membership).
I think if we were doing so well out of the EU as France was, the Tories would be much more in favour.
Yes, on a transactional basis it feels like the club membership which you only ever use the gym, and there's a whole series of after hours parties that you never get invited to (or never really fancy attending.
So you don't want to go to these parties but you still want to be invited?
BREXIT!!! ('cos it would have been nice to be asked)
Especially since i seemed to be getting the largest share of the bar bill.
Macron would not be a Tory, En Marche is affiliated to the ALDE group of European Liberals in the European Parliament not the centre right EPP the Tories were affiliated with or the ECR group they are now affiliated with.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
You're talking about allegiances on an outward basis. The core of the man is a neo-liberal economist with neo-conservative foreign policy. You really don't get much more Tory than that.
That is often how the Conservatives present themselves as, but it certainly isn't the case now under May and (I assume) it will not be the case going forward. If trends continue the next Conservative administrations will be statist, interventionist, Eurosceptic and protectionist . Euroscepticism (pre-Brexit) and Brexit (going forward) have changed the political alignments.
These days Tony Benn would have joined the Tory party and sat with the ERG.
JRM and Benn remind me of each other. Which compliments neither...
Please make it stop. You are embarrassing yourself today.
You're back?
What a shame. I hoped you'd been banned for good. You were an utterly toxic presence on this site.
Let's hope you've learned your lesson.
I disagree with you on absolutely everything at the most fundamental level possible. However you do usually form your arguments with a pithy precision I can respect. This isn't that.
Actually, I don't think you're half as doctrinaire or as fundamentalist as you make yourself out to be, much of which I think is for effect. But thank you.
clipped: I define myself by economic freedom, and allow that to override my personal disapproval of a whole series of social liberal positions, which is at a gut level much more reactionary.
Do I approve of gay marriage? No. Should I or anybody else be able to stop two men from getting married. No.
Businesses thrive better when they are free to act in their own interests, and so do people. You cannot with consistent thought advocate for freedom for one, without the other.
An answer to a question that Tim Farron seemed entirely unable to give.
Macron would not be a Tory, En Marche is affiliated to the ALDE group of European Liberals in the European Parliament not the centre right EPP the Tories were affiliated with or the ECR group they are now affiliated with.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
You're talking about allegiances on an outward basis. The core of the man is a neo-liberal economist with neo-conservative foreign policy. You really don't get much more Tory than that.
That is often how the Conservatives present themselves as, but it certainly isn't the case now under May and (I assume) it will not be the case going forward. If trends continue the next Conservative administrations will be statist, interventionist, Eurosceptic and protectionist . Euroscepticism (pre-Brexit) and Brexit (going forward) have changed the political alignments.
Of course historically it has tended to be the liberals who have been the most free trade, market economics, pro business party. Indeed in the 18th and 19th centuries the Tories were the party of the landed gentry not industry and the merchant classes and frequently pro tariffs and protectionism. It was only as the Labour Party emerged as the Tories main opponents in the 20th century on a socialist platform the Tories became the party of business.
Indeed in some ways Brexit resembles the Corn Law split in the mid 19th century when free trading Tory Peelites including Gladstone split from more protectionist Tories like Derby and Disraeli to form the Liberal Party with the Whigs
...given Parliament may well vote to extend Article 50 and rule out No Deal this week...
As I mentioned last night, I intend to place a bet to insure against a no-deal Brexit. If Parliament does vote to ask for an extension that will affect the odds drastically and I will lose (more) money. Do you have any basis for this assertion? I'll take rumour but I need a named source.
We will know once Parliament has voted on all the amendment's, including Cooper's and Spelman's, on extending Article 50 and ruling out No Deal this week. No need for rumour
Macron would not be a Tory, En Marche is affiliated to the ALDE group of European Liberals in the European Parliament not the centre right EPP the Tories were affiliated with or the ECR group they are now affiliated with.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
You're talking about allegiances on an outward basis. The core of the man is a neo-liberal economist with neo-conservative foreign policy. You really don't get much more Tory than that.
That is often how the Conservatives present themselves as, but it certainly isn't the case now under May and (I assume) it will not be the case going forward. If trends continue the next Conservative administrations will be statist, interventionist, Eurosceptic and protectionist . Euroscepticism (pre-Brexit) and Brexit (going forward) have changed the political alignments.
Of course historically it has tended to be the liberals who have been the most free trade, market economics, pro business party. Indeed in the 18th and 19th centuries the Tories were the party of the landed gentry not industry and the merchant classes and frequently pro tariffs and protectionism. It was only as the Labour Party emerged as the Tories main opponents in the 20th century on a socialist platform the Tories became the party of business.
Indeed in some ways Brexit resembles the Corn Law split in the mid 19th century when free trading Tory Peelites including Gladstone split from more protectionist Tories like Derby and Disraeli to form the Liberal Party with the Whigs
As someone observed recently, the changing nature of Conservative support (northern working class) is going to change the nature of the politics they offer.
I very much doubt that he’s the only dutiful erstwhile Remainer Tory with these thoughts.
Indeed many Deal backing Tory MPs would shift to permanent Customs Union or Remain v Deal EUref2 if the Deal removes the backstop and therefore becomes No Deal by default as the EU will not agree
Macron would not be a Tory, En Marche is affiliated to the ALDE group of European Liberals in the European Parliament not the centre right EPP the Tories were affiliated with or the ECR group they are now affiliated with.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
You're talking about allegiances on an outward basis. The core of the man is a neo-liberal economist with neo-conservative foreign policy. You really don't get much more Tory than that.
That is often how the Conservatives present themselves as, but it certainly isn't the case now under May and (I assume) it will not be the case going forward. If trends continue the next Conservative administrations will be statist, interventionist, Eurosceptic and protectionist . Euroscepticism (pre-Brexit) and Brexit (going forward) have changed the political alignments.
Of course historically it has tended to be the liberals who have been the most free trade, market economics, pro business party. Indeed in the 18th and 19th centuries the Tories were the party of the landed gentry not industry and the merchant classes and frequently pro tariffs and protectionism. It was only as the Labour Party emerged as the Tories main opponents in the 20th century on a socialist platform the Tories became the party of business.
Indeed in some ways Brexit resembles the Corn Law split in the mid 19th century when free trading Tory Peelites including Gladstone split from more protectionist Tories like Derby and Disraeli to form the Liberal Party with the Whigs
The most likely scenario after we leave with No Deal on 29th March is that absolutely nothing changes on the Irish border: goods and people will still flow as freely as they do now. Obviously, the Irish cannot and will not say this in advance, but any other outcome would be economically and politically disastrous. So Ireland will be fine - until someone brings a WTO case, which no-one is likely to do because no-one else is going to be very affected. However, none of that helps the UK because we will be stuck in No Deal with no way out unless we agree to the backstop. What am I missing?
...given Parliament may well vote to extend Article 50 and rule out No Deal this week...
As I mentioned last night, I intend to place a bet to insure against a no-deal Brexit. If Parliament does vote to ask for an extension that will affect the odds drastically and I will lose (more) money. Do you have any basis for this assertion? I'll take rumour but I need a named source.
We will know once Parliament has voted on all the amendment's, including Cooper's and Spelman's, on extending Article 50 and ruling out No Deal this week. No need for rumour
So few anticipated the 2008 crash that they made a rather brilliant film about it. Keeping our housing market relatively stable was an absolutely essential element of keeping our banks solvent thereafter. If house prices had fallen 30% after 2010 no bank would have survived without further capital inputs from the State. Latterly his tax policies made BTL much less attractive which is desirable if home ownership is to be more widespread.
The policy of encouraging foreign investment when we were struggling to make adequate investment ourselves made sense if you wished to keep the economy growing/stable which he did. Had we done that internally there would have been a major reduction in consumption leading to a significant recession and loss of employment. You can make the argument that that is something we needed to do but no one can argue that Osborne's pro-employment policies have not worked beyond his wildest dreams. The terms of that investment were of course a matter for the decision makers at the time.
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
Wouldn't that be he 8th job?
Yes, it seems that @another_richard's view of Osborne is not widely shared. He would need to give up quite a few of these and I am not sure that he would but he might if Gove, as PM, asked him to.
If you recall, I wrote a pb article header about this once.
My dream team would have been with Gove as PM and him as Foreign Secretary or as DexEU, which I think would have worked.
It would not have worked at all with Osborne as PM.
You've mixed up leaders and parties in your comparison. Jim Sillars is (assuming he's still a member) on the left of the SNP, which I sorta agree with. He also supports Brexit being undemocratically imposed on Scotland. If he was SNP leader I'd deplore him even more than I do now.
You sorta agree with 'Brexit being undemocratically imposed on Scotland' it is happening a few decades ago and it isn't an issue you care too much about?
Just from the way you wrote it it doesn't sound like you do.... also Brexit is happening now not a couple of decades ago.
Imagine Nicola Sturgeon supported a plastic bag tax a couple of decades ago, you agree with the idea but it isn't an issue you care deeply about. Would you now deplore Nicola Sturgeon for that reason?!
It just doesn't make much sense, I didn't state earlier that I hate the idea of N. Ireland reunited with the rest of Ireland to clarify...
No reason you should know much about Sillars (apart from him starting as a Lab mp), but when he was an elected pol he was in favour of Scottish Indy within the EU. First principle is that the people who live, work and vote in Scotland should decide its future, whether it's EU membership, Brexit or keeping a bunch of over bred aristos as heads of state. I certainly deplore those who abandon first principles as they sink into reactionary senescence.
Not really sure what your plastic bag analogy is about. Scotland (with Sturgeon as FM) introduced the bag tax in 2014 which I approve of. If she'd started to backtrack or kept quiet about it to appease Mail readers, I'd certainly hold her in contempt.
Yes but her backtracking on something you agree with hasn't happened in this example as Corbyn hasn't backtracked on his views on Ireland so I don't deplore Corbyn for his views on Ireland in the same way you don't deplore Sturgeon for her views on plastic bag tax. To make the example fit better Sturgeon would have had to introduce (or campaign) for the bag tax a couple of decades earlier but it still fits. You don't tend to deplore people for doing things you like even if it isn't a burning issue of yours.
If there is a different argument you are trying to make I am interested to hear it but I really don't understand this I should deplore Corbyn for doing something I agree with angle?
For example is the Sillars bit just a history lesson for me or is there some point you are trying to make about something else that I have said?
I mean I mentioned I am not a big nationalist earlier but I am not Sillars so I assume you aren't actually accusing me of selling out my principles?
Tessy has always been an immigration sceptic though
Well I can't remember the whole speech, but that section doesn't refer to immigration. That's the trick smart pols can pull off, they can distract from their & their audiences nasty little prejudices with soaring rhetoric.
What will be Tessy's memorable speechifying for posterity: the Nasty Party, citizens of nowhere and strong & stable?
I’d be very sceptical with regards to the abuse Abbott receives. I’ve seen plenty of criticism that she can’t add up and is incompetent - I think that is fairly accurate. I’ve also seen people claim it is because she is woman and black. If Labour frequently sent a white man to say exactly the same innumerate drivel I am sure they would see the same criticism. Abbott is the Grayling of the Left
Much of the abuse that Abbott gets makes vulgar reference to gender, skin colour and body shape. It's not pretty. It also in many cases comes from people who sound as if they are of well below average intelligence.
Grayling baiting is of a lesser order and nature, IMO, but nevertheless has become a reprehensible feeding frenzy of late. If he was black and transgender I would have no hesitation in calling some of it out as hate speech. Because that's what some of it is - hate speech.
Tessy has always been an immigration sceptic though
Well I can't remember the whole speech, but that section doesn't refer to immigration. That's the trick smart pols can pull off, they can distract from their & their audiences nasty little prejudices with soaring rhetoric.
What will be Tessy's memorable speechifying for posterity: the Nasty Party, citizens of nowhere and strong & stable?
The "unstoppable force" speech seems to have been forgotten.
I see you can't defend triple lock pensions and student tuition fees David
And are you really trying to say that the nuclear power stations fiasco was about 'encouraging foreign investment' ?
Osborne was behind the game in 2008 - you know that, I know that, we all know that - and that despite the warning signs in the economic data being there from when he became Shadow Chancellor ** and then the rather high profile case of a British bank collapsing.
There was never any danger of a 30% fall in house prices after 2010 but Osborne was more than happy to boost house prices to keep the oldies feeling affluent and voting Conservative.
** household borrowing at £100bn per year while home ownership was falling, government borrowing rising towards the end of an economic cycle, house prices soaring while share prices stagnated, falling industrial production but rapidly rising retail sales and trade deficit.
No I don't defend triple lock pensions or student fees. Both were mistakes. But Osborne is still the most competent and capable politician we have had in this country in the last 10 years (admittedly a very low bar) and would be a useful addition to any negotiating team if he could be persuaded to do it.
They were mistakes which some of us pointed out at the time ** only to be told that they must be good policies because Cameron had a high approval rating from Conservative voters.
As I said before we need people who are capable of long term strategic thinking rather than an obsession with short term tactics.
** This actually happened I remember a discussion here between us early in 2011, how time flies on PB.
A discussion with me? I never defended either policy although I did see the political impetus for a minority government. Sometimes time seems to pass quickly because the conversation never moves on.
Some things change - supporters of triple lock pensions and the tripling of student fees are much rarer on PB than they were when they were introduced.
That's what happens when the short term tactical benefits give way to the the long term strategic damage.
Anyway its time for a walk and then dinner for me.
I’d be very sceptical with regards to the abuse Abbott receives. I’ve seen plenty of criticism that she can’t add up and is incompetent - I think that is fairly accurate. I’ve also seen people claim it is because she is woman and black. If Labour frequently sent a white man to say exactly the same innumerate drivel I am sure they would see the same criticism. Abbott is the Grayling of the Left
Much of the abuse that Abbott gets makes vulgar reference to gender, skin colour and body shape. It's not pretty. It also in many cases comes from people who sound as if they are of well below average intelligence.
Grayling baiting is of a lesser order and nature, IMO, but nevertheless has become a reprehensible feeding frenzy of late. If he was black and transgender I would have no hesitation in calling some of it out as hate speech. Because that's what some of it is - hate speech.
The stuff that IDS and Esther Mcvey used to get/still get is as reprehensible as anything put out and puts lie that somehow one side of the debate is on the side of the angels. Some of the latter put out in the official name of the labour party.
The most likely scenario after we leave with No Deal on 29th March is that absolutely nothing changes on the Irish border: goods and people will still flow as freely as they do now. Obviously, the Irish cannot and will not say this in advance, but any other outcome would be economically and politically disastrous. So Ireland will be fine - until someone brings a WTO case, which no-one is likely to do because no-one else is going to be very affected. However, none of that helps the UK because we will be stuck in No Deal with no way out unless we agree to the backstop. What am I missing?
Except Ireland would be in breech of agreements as part of the EU and customs union etc etc.
The most likely scenario after we leave with No Deal on 29th March is that absolutely nothing changes on the Irish border: goods and people will still flow as freely as they do now. Obviously, the Irish cannot and will not say this in advance, but any other outcome would be economically and politically disastrous. So Ireland will be fine - until someone brings a WTO case, which no-one is likely to do because no-one else is going to be very affected. However, none of that helps the UK because we will be stuck in No Deal with no way out unless we agree to the backstop. What am I missing?
Parliament voting for a permanent Customs Union first to avoid No Deal and the EU and Irish accepting it
The most likely scenario after we leave with No Deal on 29th March is that absolutely nothing changes on the Irish border: goods and people will still flow as freely as they do now. Obviously, the Irish cannot and will not say this in advance, but any other outcome would be economically and politically disastrous. So Ireland will be fine - until someone brings a WTO case, which no-one is likely to do because no-one else is going to be very affected. However, none of that helps the UK because we will be stuck in No Deal with no way out unless we agree to the backstop. What am I missing?
Parliament voting for a permanent Customs Union first
A permanent customs union is an attempt to tie the hands at the next round. Hardly seems worth going through all this if we are in a permanent customs union. How do we negotiate payments for participation when the EU know we have bound ourselves to join?
The most likely scenario after we leave with No Deal on 29th March is that absolutely nothing changes on the Irish border: goods and people will still flow as freely as they do now. Obviously, the Irish cannot and will not say this in advance, but any other outcome would be economically and politically disastrous. So Ireland will be fine - until someone brings a WTO case, which no-one is likely to do because no-one else is going to be very affected. However, none of that helps the UK because we will be stuck in No Deal with no way out unless we agree to the backstop. What am I missing?
Except Ireland would be in breech of agreements as part of the EU and customs union etc etc.
That all applies until 30th March, then real decisions have to be made. My question boils down to this: if Ireland does not make any changes at the border after the No Deal Brexit, how does that help the UK overcome the problems caused by a No Deal Brexit? As far as I can see - and I could well be missing something here - in practical terms, our big issue is not the Irish border.
The most likely scenario after we leave with No Deal on 29th March is that absolutely nothing changes on the Irish border: goods and people will still flow as freely as they do now. Obviously, the Irish cannot and will not say this in advance, but any other outcome would be economically and politically disastrous. So Ireland will be fine - until someone brings a WTO case, which no-one is likely to do because no-one else is going to be very affected. However, none of that helps the UK because we will be stuck in No Deal with no way out unless we agree to the backstop. What am I missing?
Parliament voting for a permanent Customs Union first
A permanent customs union is an attempt to tie the hands at the next round. Hardly seems worth going through all this if we are in a permanent customs union. How do we negotiate payments for participation when the EU know we have bound ourselves to join?
It is the most likely outcome in my view now though given 301 MPs voted for a permanent Customs Union last year, only 202 voted for May's Deal and only 100 to 150 MPs want No Deal and given Juncker's statement yesterday the EU will only renegotiate with a UK commitment to permanent Customs Union membership
The most likely scenario after we leave with No Deal on 29th March is that absolutely nothing changes on the Irish border: goods and people will still flow as freely as they do now. Obviously, the Irish cannot and will not say this in advance, but any other outcome would be economically and politically disastrous. So Ireland will be fine - until someone brings a WTO case, which no-one is likely to do because no-one else is going to be very affected. However, none of that helps the UK because we will be stuck in No Deal with no way out unless we agree to the backstop. What am I missing?
Parliament voting for a permanent Customs Union first
A permanent customs union is an attempt to tie the hands at the next round. Hardly seems worth going through all this if we are in a permanent customs union. How do we negotiate payments for participation when the EU know we have bound ourselves to join?
Indeed, and this is why the ERG were so stupid to vote against the WA.
...given Parliament may well vote to extend Article 50 and rule out No Deal this week...
As I mentioned last night, I intend to place a bet to insure against a no-deal Brexit. If Parliament does vote to ask for an extension that will affect the odds drastically and I will lose (more) money. Do you have any basis for this assertion? I'll take rumour but I need a named source.
We will know once Parliament has voted on all the amendment's, including Cooper's and Spelman's, on extending Article 50 and ruling out No Deal this week. No need for rumour
Which amendment(s) cover an Article 50 extension?
Cooper's
Excellent, thank you.
Arse. I've had a look.
This week the MPs are discussing Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Yvette Cooper's amendment is called "amendment (b)" and is an amendment to that section. Amendment (b) stipulates that if a deal is not done by Feb 5th then the House will discuss the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 3) Bill. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 3) Bill will (if enacted) enable the House to instruct the PM to seek an extension.
As previously discussed I believe in a strong executive and this sticks in the craw a bit. But it appears that this may pass. If it does, then it makes an extension more likely, although not certain.
This is a puzzler. It is not clear which way this will go and "analysis paralysis" is creeping up on me. Not good.
The stuff that IDS and Esther Mcvey used to get/still get is as reprehensible as anything put out and puts lie that somehow one side of the debate is on the side of the angels. Some of the latter put out in the official name of the labour party.
Most certainly this problem is not all on one side. However the racist element with DA should not be downplayed or, worse, flatly denied. I would ask any person who makes a regular habit of slagging her off, mocking her, making snide and malevolent remarks about her, to please undertake an urgent and rigorous self audit for racism and make sure that they really can, in all honesty and fairness, issue themselves with a clean report. If they do, and they can, fine. Otherwise, make the appropriate mental and behavioural adjustment. The latter is even better in a sense - more joy in heaven and earth over one ... etc.
Yes but her backtracking on something you agree with hasn't happened in this example as Corbyn hasn't backtracked on his views on Ireland so I don't deplore Corbyn for his views on Ireland in the same way you don't deplore Sturgeon for her views on plastic bag tax. To make the example fit better Sturgeon would have had to introduce (or campaign) for the bag tax a couple of decades earlier but it still fits. You don't tend to deplore people for doing things you like even if it isn't a burning issue of yours.
If there is a different argument you are trying to make I am interested to hear it but I really don't understand this I should deplore Corbyn for doing something I agree with angle?
For example is the Sillars bit just a history lesson for me or is there some point you are trying to make about something else that I have said?
I mean I mentioned I am not a big nationalist earlier but I am not Sillars so I assume you aren't actually accusing me of selling out my principles?
Christ, I should know better than to get pulled down prolix rabbit holes.
The initial point to which I responded was you conflating devolution with nationalism (neither of which you like). I pointed out that devolution was constructed & enacted by the 'nation' of the UK, largely to maintain its constitutional integrity. You responded by saying you had no real interest in the constructs of the English, Welsh & Scottish nations. I was intrigued by the absences of Ireland on your list since it seems to have occupied the politics of Corbyn for most of his adult life, and you seem to spend much of your time on here defending, parsing, interpreting and deciphering Jezza's deep but concealed thoughts on just about everything. I now realise that since there's a realistic prospect of Ireland being reunited without the benefit of an armed struggle, the whole matter has become uninteresting or uncomfortable for Jezzah and his supporters.
All the analogies and comparisons from both of us can be taken out and shot as far as I'm concerned.
I very much doubt that he’s the only dutiful erstwhile Remainer Tory with these thoughts.
I have a lot of respect for him.
Whether one agrees with his position or not he seems to be taking great pains to lay out very clearly why he will do whatever it is he intends, and it would not appear to be obvious cover for his actual position.
Feels like we are little further on Brexit this weekend. Shout more: shout louder seems to be the order of the day, with Mark Francois having a starring cameo as the pantomime dame.
I think the most dangerous thing will be if the Brady / Morrison amendment passes this week as it wastes time calling for unicorns. An amendment saying 'customs union for removing backstop and 9 month delay to negotiate this' might be a bit more useful but it's not there.
Hate to say it, but I hope Bercow refuses to take a vote on Murrison / Brady again. Will look very partisan but it's a time-waster when we haven't got time. If it's taken I hope it's voted down by a big number.
I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over. I snap out of it sooner or later because I can do without lasting damage to my country, but It sounds like I'm not the only one. I really don't know how I'd vote in a deal or no deal vote; from here I could live with Norway if there really is no way of stopping this.
I very much doubt that he’s the only dutiful erstwhile Remainer Tory with these thoughts.
I have a lot of respect for him.
Whether one agrees with his position or not he seems to be taking great pains to lay out very clearly why he will do whatever it is he intends, and it would not appear to be obvious cover for his actual position.
Precisely so. I wish there were more politicians like him.
Hate to say it, but I hope Bercow refuses to take a vote on Murrison/Brady again. Will look very partisan but it's a time-waster when we haven't got time.
Not that I expect it to concern Bercow, but if he's ruling out things as time wasting he would need to refuse a whole lot more amendments than he has or will.
Sadly I have to agree with you that we are little further on Brexit than we were a week ago. The two big plans are the 'I want to remain but let's pretend it is about delaying' Cooper plan which is not hing more than kicking the can, and the aforementioned Murrison/Brady 'We've tried this before with the EU but let's pretend this time they will change position' unicorn plan. Neither are very serious propositions.
The stuff that IDS and Esther Mcvey used to get/still get is as reprehensible as anything put out and puts lie that somehow one side of the debate is on the side of the angels. Some of the latter put out in the official name of the labour party.
Most certainly this problem is not all on one side. However the racist element with DA should not be downplayed or, worse, flatly denied. I would ask any person who makes a regular habit of slagging her off, mocking her, making snide and malevolent remarks about her, to please undertake an urgent and rigorous self audit for racism and make sure that they really can, in all honesty and fairness, issue themselves with a clean report. If they do, and they can, fine. Otherwise, make the appropriate mental and behavioural adjustment. The latter is even better in a sense - more joy in heaven and earth over one ... etc.
Indeed.
a) X is stupid b) X is a stupid bitch c) X is a stupid black bitch
a) may deplore b) & c), but given that a) is probably an anonymous poster on some obscure corner of the internet and the point has been repeated thousands of times, it's being made for self gratification and the warm fuzzy feeling of being agreed with by other a)s. Personally being in the vicinity of b) & c) might give me pause before embracing a bit of warm, fuzzy self gratification.
The most likely scenario after we leave with No Deal on 29th March is that absolutely nothing changes on the Irish border: goods and people will still flow as freely as they do now. Obviously, the Irish cannot and will not say this in advance, but any other outcome would be economically and politically disastrous. So Ireland will be fine - until someone brings a WTO case, which no-one is likely to do because no-one else is going to be very affected. However, none of that helps the UK because we will be stuck in No Deal with no way out unless we agree to the backstop. What am I missing?
Parliament voting for a permanent Customs Union first to avoid No Deal and the EU and Irish accepting it
It is hard to say which rock will crash a no deal Brexit as there are so many unknown unknowns. Even if only half the doomsday scenarios are true it will be a brutal transition in which the strong will do best. My business is already overwhelmed with work as UK buyers try to purchase more locally. However my focus is on international sales and we have started a limited rationing of production for the UK. If as expected the UK pound takes a further drop we are now fairly well insulated as half my income is non UK.
The interesting thing is that Brexiteers still cling to the notion people will want to sell to us even if we have nothing to trade. Being over dependent on the UK market is now considered a liability.
Christ, I should know better than to get pulled down prolix rabbit holes.
The initial point to which I responded was you conflating devolution with nationalism (neither of which you like). I pointed out that devolution was constructed & enacted by the 'nation' of the UK, largely to maintain its constitutional integrity. You responded by saying you had no real interest in the constructs of the English, Welsh & Scottish nations. I was intrigued by the absences of Ireland on your list since it seems to have occupied the politics of Corbyn for most of his adult life, and you seem to spend much of your time on here defending, parsing, interpreting and deciphering Jezza's deep but concealed thoughts on just about everything. I now realise that since there's a realistic prospect of Ireland being reunited without the benefit of an armed struggle, the whole matter has become uninteresting or uncomfortable for Jezzah and his supporters.
All the analogies and comparisons from both of us can be taken out and shot as far as I'm concerned.
Yes lets keep this simple.
It was the bit you were telling me I should deplore Jezza for this that was rather confusing....
Also why would Jezza's previous on Ireland be uncomfortable now that it (possibly) looks a more realistic prospect?
I would happily tell people that Jezza is in favour of a united Ireland if they asked or it came up, I can't say it is something I wouldn't want people to know.
It isn't my number 1 issue, I am not completely uninterested in the subject of a united Ireland, if 2 posters started discussing an interesting aspect of it I would read it, whereas I skip cricket posts. It just isn't in my top list of priorities.
I don't mind that Corbyn might have had different priorities to ones I have right now some decades ago, especially given we seem to have pretty similar priorities right now.
I realise this is dangerous ground to go back to but let's say hypothetically there is a politician you mostly agree with right now, would you have a problem with them prioritising something you don't care deeply about now back when you weren't even alive?
As best I can guess is what you want from me in regards to Corbyn.
I’d be very sceptical with regards to the abuse Abbott receives. I’ve seen plenty of criticism that she can’t add up and is incompetent - I think that is fairly accurate. I’ve also seen people claim it is because she is woman and black. If Labour frequently sent a white man to say exactly the same innumerate drivel I am sure they would see the same criticism. Abbott is the Grayling of the Left
Much of the abuse that Abbott gets makes vulgar reference to gender, skin colour and body shape. It's not pretty. It also in many cases comes from people who sound as if they are of well below average intelligence.
Grayling baiting is of a lesser order and nature, IMO, but nevertheless has become a reprehensible feeding frenzy of late. If he was black and transgender I would have no hesitation in calling some of it out as hate speech. Because that's what some of it is - hate speech.
I think you can also compare the level and nature of abuse Abbott gets to other Labour frontbenchers who do the same things as her if not worse. Corbyn has lied repeatedly on TV, is much more evasive in interviews and has never even tried to explain how a policy would work in detail rather than merely asserting that it would. Yet Abbott, who is often put on TV precisely because she's clever enough to bluster her way through with scant material (not an admirable trait, as it's one reason our politics is a mess, but a skill of sorts), is the main target of abuse.
I'm not entirely convinced Richard Burgon's stupidity isn't a piece of performance art, but again Abbott is always the target for some, and John McDonnell asserting six impossible things before breakfast is largely why Shadow Ministers struggle with the sums in the first place, but people will claim with a straight face that he's re-positioned himself as a "trusty bank manager".
a) X is stupid b) X is a stupid bitch c) X is a stupid black bitch
a) may deplore b) & c), but given that a) is probably an anonymous poster on some obscure corner of the internet and the point has been repeated thousands of times, it's being made for self gratification and the warm fuzzy feeling of being agreed with by other a)s. Personally being in the vicinity of b) & c) might give me pause before embracing a bit of warm, fuzzy self gratification.
A lot of it is exactly that. It's not nice to see. And of course she is not stupid, far from it. What she does have is a manner which can irritate, a way of saying quite mundane things as if they were of great insight and import, but, gosh, that is no rarity in politicians. If I started to here & now list out her fellow offenders in this particular regard, I would not make it to another thread until around Easter.
...given Parliament may well vote to extend Article 50 and rule out No Deal this week...
As I mentioned last night, I intend to place a bet to insure against a no-deal Brexit. If Parliament does vote to ask for an extension that will affect the odds drastically and I will lose (more) money. Do you have any basis for this assertion? I'll take rumour but I need a named source.
We will know once Parliament has voted on all the amendment's, including Cooper's and Spelman's, on extending Article 50 and ruling out No Deal this week. No need for rumour
Which amendment(s) cover an Article 50 extension?
Cooper's
Excellent, thank you.
Arse. I've had a look.
This week the MPs are discussing Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Yvette Cooper's amendment is called "amendment (b)" and is an amendment to that section. Amendment (b) stipulates that if a deal is not done by Feb 5th then the House will discuss the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 3) Bill. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 3) Bill will (if enacted) enable the House to instruct the PM to seek an extension.
As previously discussed I believe in a strong executive and this sticks in the craw a bit. But it appears that this may pass. If it does, then it makes an extension more likely, although not certain.
This is a puzzler. It is not clear which way this will go and "analysis paralysis" is creeping up on me. Not good.
I still can’t see how the bill can be forced all the way through into law within six weeks, if the government aren’t willing to go along with it?
For example, what happens if the government say there is no way to get an acceptable deal and then schedule the myriad of bills required in both Houses and all the committees to enact that scenario?
I think you can also compare the level and nature of abuse Abbott gets to other Labour frontbenchers who do the same things as her if not worse. Corbyn has lied repeatedly on TV, is much more evasive in interviews and has never even tried to explain how a policy would work in detail rather than merely asserting that it would. Yet Abbott, who is often put on TV precisely because she's clever enough to bluster her way through with scant material (not an admirable trait, as it's one reason our politics is a mess, but a skill of sorts), is the main target of abuse.
I'm not entirely convinced Richard Burgon's stupidity isn't a piece of performance art, but again Abbott is always the target for some, and John McDonnell asserting six impossible things before breakfast is largely why Shadow Ministers struggle with the sums in the first place, but people will claim with a straight face that he's re-positioned himself as a "trusty bank manager".
Whilst not agreeing with such a negative view of Labour (I will be voting for them) you make an important observation.
It is mainly people on the right of politics for whom Abbott is a butt. So is this because she is a stand out example of perceived incompetence on the left of politics?
Answer, no, not really.
So what is different about DA then? What makes her so ... special?
I think you can also compare the level and nature of abuse Abbott gets to other Labour frontbenchers who do the same things as her if not worse. Corbyn has lied repeatedly on TV, is much more evasive in interviews and has never even tried to explain how a policy would work in detail rather than merely asserting that it would. Yet Abbott, who is often put on TV precisely because she's clever enough to bluster her way through with scant material (not an admirable trait, as it's one reason our politics is a mess, but a skill of sorts), is the main target of abuse.
I'm not entirely convinced Richard Burgon's stupidity isn't a piece of performance art, but again Abbott is always the target for some, and John McDonnell asserting six impossible things before breakfast is largely why Shadow Ministers struggle with the sums in the first place, but people will claim with a straight face that he's re-positioned himself as a "trusty bank manager".
Whilst not agreeing with such a negative view of Labour (I will be voting for them) you make an important observation.
It is mainly people on the right of politics for whom Abbott is a butt. So is this because she is a stand out example of perceived incompetence on the left of politics?
Answer, no, not really.
So what is different about DA then? What makes her so ... special?
And that answer we know.
I have to disagree. The current shadow front bench makes that of the mid 90s look like the most competent ever assembled. The Avengers compared to that bloke on the Isle of Wight. Abbott has by far the most prominent career outside Parliament by virtue of being on This Week for so long. She is a running joke on Dead ringers for incredulity. With regards to Burgon, Gardiner and Williamson who I hold in much more disdain they are hardly known outside the party.
Comments
Gove wants the job himself, so couldn't be trusted to stand down later on.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6635891/PETER-HITCHENS-David-Cameron-never-Prime-Minister.html
"If Mr Brown had won in 2010, I suspect the country would be in better shape by far than it is now, while Jeremy Corbyn would still be quietly growing marrows in his North London allotment, a forgotten fringe figure."
dog turd in a suit
We have seen this in the UK, where Labour was once highly Eurosceptic and went to the country in 1982 wanting to withdraw.
We have seen many parties change their mind on the EU depending on how the political wind blows (Sinn Fein, the SNP, The Tories, the Labour Party).
The EU is about getting your way. France does very well out of the EU (both financially, and in terms of influence). It gets its way a lot.
The UK does not do very well out of the EU (partly because we were always very ambivalent about membership).
I think if we were doing so well out of the EU as France was, the Tories would be much more in favour.
As I said before we need people who are capable of long term strategic thinking rather than an obsession with short term tactics.
** This actually happened I remember a discussion here between us early in 2011, how time flies on PB.
In the 2017 election it was Fillon proposing the most Thatcherite economic policies not Macron, Macron is in British terms a Blairite, Cleggite, Cameroon not a Thatcherite, his pro EU policies alone make that clear
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107219
It's your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer.
Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep.
It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real.
Review extracts from Amazon:
'Here is a vivacious account of how in the 1950s, under Eden and Lloyd at the Foreign Office, some 5,000 young men doing national service were quietly siphoned off from their units, secluded in Cornwall and Fifeshire, or, more boldly, next door to the Guards depot at Coulsdon in Surrey, and put through crash courses in Russian till they could speak it fluently ...' M. R. D. Foot, Spectator
Lambasted by the Soviets as a 'spy school', the Joint Services School for Linguists (JSSL) was a major Cold War initiative, which pushed 5000 young National Servicemen through intensive training as Russian translators and interpreters, primarily to meet the needs of Britain's signals intelligence operations. Its pupils included a remarkable cross-section of talented young men who went on to a diversity of glittering careers: professors of Russian, Chinese, ancient philosophy, economics; the historian Sir Martin Gilbert; authors such as Alan Bennett, Dennis Potter and Michael Frayn; screenwriter Jack Rosenthal; stage director Sir Peter Hall; and churchmen ranging from a bishop to a displaced Carmelite friar.
Geoffrey Elliot and Harold Shukman, both of whom emerged from JSSL as interpreters, have drawn on many personal recollections and interviews with fellow students, as well as once highly classified documents in the Public Record Office, in order to reveal this fascinating story for the first time.
'An engaging, quirky account of this strange offshoot of the Cold War ... a kind of Virgin Soldiers for clever clogs.' Michael Leapman, Independent
Dennis Potter's Lipstick on your Collar was about RAF Russian translaters, come to think of it.
Macron is pro EU and a social liberal, not a natural Tory as I said. If Macron was a conservative he would be in Les Republicans not En Marche
BREXIT!!!
('cos it would have been nice to be asked)
https://twitter.com/pm4eastren/status/1089499598043852800?s=21
I very much doubt that he’s the only dutiful erstwhile Remainer Tory with these thoughts.
I define myself by economic freedom, and allow that to override my personal disapproval of a whole series of social liberal positions, which is at a gut level much more reactionary.
Do I approve of gay marriage? No. Should I or anybody else be able to stop two men from getting married. No.
Businesses thrive better when they are free to act in their own interests, and so do people. You cannot with consistent thought advocate for freedom for one, without the other.
An answer to a question that Tim Farron seemed entirely unable to give.
Indeed in some ways Brexit resembles the Corn Law split in the mid 19th century when free trading Tory Peelites including Gladstone split from more protectionist Tories like Derby and Disraeli to form the Liberal Party with the Whigs
My dream team would have been with Gove as PM and him as Foreign Secretary or as DexEU, which I think would have worked.
It would not have worked at all with Osborne as PM.
If there is a different argument you are trying to make I am interested to hear it but I really don't understand this I should deplore Corbyn for doing something I agree with angle?
For example is the Sillars bit just a history lesson for me or is there some point you are trying to make about something else that I have said?
I mean I mentioned I am not a big nationalist earlier but I am not Sillars so I assume you aren't actually accusing me of selling out my principles?
What will be Tessy's memorable speechifying for posterity: the Nasty Party, citizens of nowhere and strong & stable?
Grayling baiting is of a lesser order and nature, IMO, but nevertheless has become a reprehensible feeding frenzy of late. If he was black and transgender I would have no hesitation in calling some of it out as hate speech. Because that's what some of it is - hate speech.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/26/theresa-may-hails-four-nations-of-the-uk-as-unstoppable-force
That's what happens when the short term tactical benefits give way to the the long term strategic damage.
Anyway its time for a walk and then dinner for me.
Excellent summary here:
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/0126/1025621-tony-blog/
Put's all that "traitor" nonsense into perspective, doesn't it?
This week the MPs are discussing Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Yvette Cooper's amendment is called "amendment (b)" and is an amendment to that section. Amendment (b) stipulates that if a deal is not done by Feb 5th then the House will discuss the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 3) Bill. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 3) Bill will (if enacted) enable the House to instruct the PM to seek an extension.
As previously discussed I believe in a strong executive and this sticks in the craw a bit. But it appears that this may pass. If it does, then it makes an extension more likely, although not certain.
This is a puzzler. It is not clear which way this will go and "analysis paralysis" is creeping up on me. Not good.
* https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/25/yvette-coopers-plan-to-see-off-no-deal-brexit-hangs-in-the-balance
* https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8480
* https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmagenda/OP190128.pdf
* https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/01/amendments-designed-rule-out-no-deal-brexit-expose-just-how-difficult-it
* https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/101298/explained-stopping-no-deal-calling-second-referendum-all-‘plan-b’
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/whatsapp-wikileaks-and-threats-against-a-dog-the-roger-stone-indictment/
John Oliver is right, this really is Stupid Watergate.
(Also, what kind of MONSTER threatens a DOG?!)
Christ, I should know better than to get pulled down prolix rabbit holes.
The initial point to which I responded was you conflating devolution with nationalism (neither of which you like). I pointed out that devolution was constructed & enacted by the 'nation' of the UK, largely to maintain its constitutional integrity. You responded by saying you had no real interest in the constructs of the English, Welsh & Scottish nations. I was intrigued by the absences of Ireland on your list since it seems to have occupied the politics of Corbyn for most of his adult life, and you seem to spend much of your time on here defending, parsing, interpreting and deciphering Jezza's deep but concealed thoughts on just about everything. I now realise that since there's a realistic prospect of Ireland being reunited without the benefit of an armed struggle, the whole matter has become uninteresting or uncomfortable for Jezzah and his supporters.
All the analogies and comparisons from both of us can be taken out and shot as far as I'm concerned.
I think the most dangerous thing will be if the Brady / Morrison amendment passes this week as it wastes time calling for unicorns. An amendment saying 'customs union for removing backstop and 9 month delay to negotiate this' might be a bit more useful but it's not there.
Hate to say it, but I hope Bercow refuses to take a vote on Murrison / Brady again. Will look very partisan but it's a time-waster when we haven't got time. If it's taken I hope it's voted down by a big number.
I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over. I snap out of it sooner or later because I can do without lasting damage to my country, but It sounds like I'm not the only one. I really don't know how I'd vote in a deal or no deal vote; from here I could live with Norway if there really is no way of stopping this.
Sadly I have to agree with you that we are little further on Brexit than we were a week ago. The two big plans are the 'I want to remain but let's pretend it is about delaying' Cooper plan which is not hing more than kicking the can, and the aforementioned Murrison/Brady 'We've tried this before with the EU but let's pretend this time they will change position' unicorn plan. Neither are very serious propositions.
a) X is stupid
b) X is a stupid bitch
c) X is a stupid black bitch
a) may deplore b) & c), but given that a) is probably an anonymous poster on some obscure corner of the internet and the point has been repeated thousands of times, it's being made for self gratification and the warm fuzzy feeling of being agreed with by other a)s. Personally being in the vicinity of b) & c) might give me pause before embracing a bit of warm, fuzzy self gratification.
The interesting thing is that Brexiteers still cling to the notion people will want to sell to us even if we have nothing to trade. Being over dependent on the UK market is now considered a liability.
It was the bit you were telling me I should deplore Jezza for this that was rather confusing....
Also why would Jezza's previous on Ireland be uncomfortable now that it (possibly) looks a more realistic prospect?
I would happily tell people that Jezza is in favour of a united Ireland if they asked or it came up, I can't say it is something I wouldn't want people to know.
It isn't my number 1 issue, I am not completely uninterested in the subject of a united Ireland, if 2 posters started discussing an interesting aspect of it I would read it, whereas I skip cricket posts. It just isn't in my top list of priorities.
I don't mind that Corbyn might have had different priorities to ones I have right now some decades ago, especially given we seem to have pretty similar priorities right now.
I realise this is dangerous ground to go back to but let's say hypothetically there is a politician you mostly agree with right now, would you have a problem with them prioritising something you don't care deeply about now back when you weren't even alive?
As best I can guess is what you want from me in regards to Corbyn.
I'm not entirely convinced Richard Burgon's stupidity isn't a piece of performance art, but again Abbott is always the target for some, and John McDonnell asserting six impossible things before breakfast is largely why Shadow Ministers struggle with the sums in the first place, but people will claim with a straight face that he's re-positioned himself as a "trusty bank manager".
For example, what happens if the government say there is no way to get an acceptable deal and then schedule the myriad of bills required in both Houses and all the committees to enact that scenario?
It is mainly people on the right of politics for whom Abbott is a butt. So is this because she is a stand out example of perceived incompetence on the left of politics?
Answer, no, not really.
So what is different about DA then? What makes her so ... special?
And that answer we know.