He in particular seems to very eager to have no deal, I hope for Ireland's sake it is not as bad as feared because he sure doesn't care if it hits them.
Coventry said he would back an extension of Article 50, Juncker backed a permanent Customs Union for the whole UK yesterday.
The EU, probably correctly, actually thinks the Commons will vote for a more BINO Brexit than May's Deal rather than No Deal given Parliament may well vote to extend Article 50 and rule out No Deal this week and 301 MPs voted for a permanent Customs Union last year
What they say is not as important as what they do, and they are as guilt of unicornism as us. They might get lucky but it's not certain and then they will have to face up that they helped choose no deal. As for wgreeing a delay thats still pointless until we agree an outcome.
In some respects it is not the EU who are guilty of unicornism but the ERG.
It's both (and May and Corbyn too)
Given Juncker's backing for a permanent Customs Union last night though and the fact 301 MPs voted for one last year a Corbyn style Brexit is probably the likeliest outcome now
Why do you think May will propose it?
May won't propose it, Corbyn will and given a permanent Customs Union was rejected by just 307 votes to 301 by MPs last summer and Juncker backed a permanent Customs Union last night it takes less than 10 MPs to switch for the Commons to vote for a permanent Customs Union.
May will then either have to accept the Commons decision or set up a constitutional crisis and a clash between the executive and the legislature and probably the resignation of half her Cabinet and her Chancellor given Hammond has reportedly already proposed a permanent Customs Union to her
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.
It is a big circle that comes back to the fact she's black. A white man making her mistakes wouldn't have got the same traction. there are other reasons, many of the figures on the front bench of the Labour party get extra stick because they are on the left so part of it is that but a lot of it does come back to her being black.
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.
I agree that she would get less racist abuse if her profile were lower.
...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?
The amendment (b) contains provisions intended to speed up the passing of European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 3) Bill. Whether they will work (or work in time) I dunno.
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.
Surely even if the point is if marginal value people should have the right to say (a) should they wish?
The fact that (b) and (c) exist doesn’t limit (a)’s right to free 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.
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.
Surely even if the point is if marginal value people should have the right to say (a) should they wish?
The fact that (b) and (c) exist doesn’t limit (a)’s right to free speech
What is a "marginal value people"? Did you miss out a comma?
At this stage, the EU would surely rather negotiate with Corbyn/Labour. The latest statement that a customs union would remove a backstop is sailing pretty close to an open admission they'd rather have Labour in charge.
I think anybody with any sense does at this exact moment. We obviously have to leave to respect the vote, and we obviously have to stay in the customs union to respect common sense. A Labour government to get this set up would be just the ticket. It would also give the Tories a chance to sort themselves out so we have a choice at the next election.
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.
Surely even if the point is if marginal value people should have the right to say (a) should they wish?
The fact that (b) and (c) exist doesn’t limit (a)’s right to free speech
What is a "marginal value people"? Did you miss out a comma?
Even If the point is OF marginal, people should...
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.
Surely even if the point is if marginal value people should have the right to say (a) should they wish?
The fact that (b) and (c) exist doesn’t limit (a)’s right to free speech
What is a "marginal value people"? Did you miss out a comma?
Even If the point is OF marginal, people should...
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.
Well, they could say that they have changed their minds having seen the way things have turned out since the last election and that, on the basis of what is now happening/likely to happen, they think that Remain is the better option, notwithstanding the manifesto and the referendum result. And then submit themselves to the voters at the next election.
If the facts change, it is no shame to say that you've changed your mind. Indeed, it could be described as courageous.
Well, they could say that they have changed their minds having seen the way things have turned out since the last election and that, on the basis of what is now happening/likely to happen, they think that Remain is the better option, notwithstanding the manifesto and the referendum result. And then submit themselves to the voters at the next election.
If the facts change, it is no shame to say that you've changed your mind. Indeed, it could be described as courageous.
Perhaps once a couple of them do it many will follow. The dam of dishonesty will break, as it were, and the river of truth will pour forth.
On Diane Abbott, I have mixed feelings. She made one of the best Parliamentary speeches during the Blair premiership against his proposals for 42-day detention without trial. She deserved then - and now - praise for that.
I have no doubt that she gets a lot of sexist and racist abuse precisely because she is a prominent black woman. Whoever does this should be ashamed of themselves. There are plenty of ways of pulling apart her arguments without indulging in ad hominem abuse.
At the same time, she can say some incredibly stupid and offensive things herself (her comments about West Indian mothers and blue eyed nurses, for instance) and her uselessness over police numbers was quite something. And just like anyone else she ought to be criticised for such stupidity/ bigotry / innumeracy etc. The fact that she is a black woman does not - and should not - give her a free pass from criticism, especially when she is in a high profile role, as she is.
She can also be irritating and some people that I know who know her well (one who has known her since school days) say that she can be incredibly rude and unpleasant, especially to people more junior than her. That too needs calling out.
I think though that if you go into public life you should develop a thick skin and selective deafness and learn to ignore the abuse rather than endlessly complain about it. Too much of politics has degenerated into name calling and people wailing about hurt feelings and insults to their identity rather than arguments about policies, ideas etc. If the abuse becomes dangerous or veers into being a crime, report it. If not then ignoring it is probably a better option. But the focus on "ooh, I'm offended, say sorry, it's not fair, wah, wah, wah" is pathetic, is not a change for the better and rather creates the impression that politicians are channelling their inner 6-year olds.
Mrs T had it right on this: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
Though she was channelling Socrates: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
There are 2 aspects to the DA thing that bother me. The first is the really vile racist and sexist abuse she gets online, but there is precious little one can say about this other than what you say here - it's terrible and so are those who do it. All in their right mind agree.
The other thing is more insidious and (to me) subtle and interesting. The way that perfectly intelligent and balanced people (in most respects) will kind of compete to come up with the 'best' little Diane Abbott joke on regular basis - happens both online and out there. These gags will not ostensibly be racist or sexist or 'fatist' - not usually - will probably be about numbers - but the relentlessness of it and the superior self-congratulatory tone in which it is purveyed is unpleasant. IMO someone engaging in this very frequently has, as they say, 'questions to answer'. Not in the menacing way of that phrase, but to themselves - why are they doing this?
Comments
The fact that (b) and (c) exist doesn’t limit (a)’s right to free speech
If the facts change, it is no shame to say that you've changed your mind. Indeed, it could be described as courageous.
Gosh that was needlessly lyrical.
I have no doubt that she gets a lot of sexist and racist abuse precisely because she is a prominent black woman. Whoever does this should be ashamed of themselves. There are plenty of ways of pulling apart her arguments without indulging in ad hominem abuse.
At the same time, she can say some incredibly stupid and offensive things herself (her comments about West Indian mothers and blue eyed nurses, for instance) and her uselessness over police numbers was quite something. And just like anyone else she ought to be criticised for such stupidity/ bigotry / innumeracy etc. The fact that she is a black woman does not - and should not - give her a free pass from criticism, especially when she is in a high profile role, as she is.
She can also be irritating and some people that I know who know her well (one who has known her since school days) say that she can be incredibly rude and unpleasant, especially to people more junior than her. That too needs calling out.
I think though that if you go into public life you should develop a thick skin and selective deafness and learn to ignore the abuse rather than endlessly complain about it. Too much of politics has degenerated into name calling and people wailing about hurt feelings and insults to their identity rather than arguments about policies, ideas etc. If the abuse becomes dangerous or veers into being a crime, report it. If not then ignoring it is probably a better option. But the focus on "ooh, I'm offended, say sorry, it's not fair, wah, wah, wah" is pathetic, is not a change for the better and rather creates the impression that politicians are channelling their inner 6-year olds.
Mrs T had it right on this: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
Though she was channelling Socrates: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
Right. All fair enough.
There are 2 aspects to the DA thing that bother me. The first is the really vile racist and sexist abuse she gets online, but there is precious little one can say about this other than what you say here - it's terrible and so are those who do it. All in their right mind agree.
The other thing is more insidious and (to me) subtle and interesting. The way that perfectly intelligent and balanced people (in most respects) will kind of compete to come up with the 'best' little Diane Abbott joke on regular basis - happens both online and out there. These gags will not ostensibly be racist or sexist or 'fatist' - not usually - will probably be about numbers - but the relentlessness of it and the superior self-congratulatory tone in which it is purveyed is unpleasant. IMO someone engaging in this very frequently has, as they say, 'questions to answer'. Not in the menacing way of that phrase, but to themselves - why are they doing this?