William Keegan making the point today in Observer that Corbyn's Labour will not have the tax base to undertake his transformation plans if he engineers Brexit in cahoots with May.
So the Parliament votes that she must revoke (I’m not sure there is s majority for that)
In a straight choice with No deal, I suspect there is.
But then you come back to the argument that has gone back and forth for months on here. Who has the power to revoke? Can Parliament order May to revoke and if they do does she have to do so? If she chooses not to then the only way they can deal with that is a VoNC. So back around we go again.
Sorry. I think he's one note, not always convincing, but he can have an amusing turn of phrase and I enjoy his writing.
He's not in a very good mood today though, is he? Taken out of context, this could easily have been written by his fellow posh boy journalist Milne:
Labour's so-called moderates are not the heirs of Attlee, Wilson, and Blair. They are the heirs of Neville Chamberlain. Not since the 1930s have we seen a more squalid abandonment of basic political principle on the altar of personal expediency.
Actually, that's unfair to Chamberlain. He thought he was saving his nation from a war. Labour's moderate MPs are interested only in saving themselves.
How does it work if the Commons instructs the government to “take no deal off the tsble@?
May scurries off to Brussels and comes back and days there is no deal other than The Deal that the government is proposed to recommend?
So the Parliament votes that she must revoke (I’m not sure there is s majority for that)
And May - knowing that it would break her party - makes it a vote of confidence in her government
Once again, I don’t think the Commons would bring down the government
So we end up withDeal or No Deal
At which point I think the Commons votes for the Deal.
What am I missing?
This is the idiocy of the whole question of voting to take No Deal off the table. Like the advisors wanting Canute to stop the tide coming in, Parliament would be asking May to do something that, at least under some circumstances, is not possible. If they want to make sure No Deal is off the table then they have to vote for Deal.
Indeed because the alternative would be to threaten to go back to Brussels and agree further concessions saying she has been instructed to do so by Parliament. Which would presumably (?) then not be subject to a meaningful vote.
I don't think I can agree with that. Ethics do vary geographically and temporally. They are based on a complex set of historical and societal pressures and I do believe it is wrong to say that, for example, some practices we now consider to be unethical, should be judged in the same way when looking at the past.
Yes, I guess I was thinking UK and 2019 when I typed that.
Certainly you're right to say ethics differ from ours in other parts of the world and from those in our part of the world in the past.
Judging them? Well that is a tricky one.
Examples -
In some countries it is unethical NOT to offer bribes to oil the wheels of commerce. In some countries it is (I think?) ethical to carry out FGM on your* daughter. In Britain in days gone by it was ethical to trade in black slaves.
Should we be condemning of any or all of these? I think on balance that we should.
* To be clear, not YOUR daughter, Richard - one's daughter. It would be a no-brainer, of course, otherwise!
Many in the Welsh Labour movement had their ethics underpinned by Methodism. Maybe that made them different?
Methodism is certainly something that I think of as Neil Kinnocky and Welsh, similarly Presbyterianism (gosh had to google that spelling) I think of as being Gordon Browny and Scottish. He was the 'Son of the Mance' after all.
But I don't know whether that is right. Perhaps these traditions are equally strong in parts of England.
We can make too much of this. Yes, Gordon Brown was son of the manse but so is Theresa May, and Mrs Thatcher as good as (and a Methodist to boot). These religious backgrounds have some explanatory power but are less useful as predictive tools.
At which point I think the Commons votes for the Deal.
What am I missing?
Boris Johnson would do anything to avoid the deal passing, including backing revocation.
No he wouldn't.
There is absolutely no way May can run the clock down to force it between her deal or crash exit. Because even with just hours left everyone will know there are still other option other than crash exit if they vote against her deal.
1. They could vote down her deal at 11th hour knowing she could revoke to prevent crash exit.
2. The could vote down her deal at 11th knowing a deal acceptable to commons could be passed by EU, parliament, even the people if put to them, that involves different red lines, and EU happy to extend to explore using different red lines.
She’s only putting pressure on herself clinging to her own deal. May is not so stupid not to realise this. Her climbdown will come sudden, without fanfare.
We can make too much of this. Yes, Gordon Brown was son of the manse but so is Theresa May, and Mrs Thatcher as good as (and a Methodist to boot). These religious backgrounds have some explanatory power but are less useful as predictive tools.
I agree. It is no predictor of political values.
Neither is it a predictor of intelligence. I view religious faith as irrational and kind of dumb - but I recognize that I must be wrong because there are plenty of people who are both cleverer than me and deeply religious.
How does it work if the Commons instructs the government to “take no deal off the tsble@?
May scurries off to Brussels and comes back and days there is no deal other than The Deal that the government is proposed to recommend?
So the Parliament votes that she must revoke (I’m not sure there is s majority for that)
And May - knowing that it would break her party - makes it a vote of confidence in her government
Once again, I don’t think the Commons would bring down the government
So we end up withDeal or No Deal
At which point I think the Commons votes for the Deal.
What am I missing?
This is the idiocy of the whole question of voting to take No Deal off the table. Like the advisors wanting Canute to stop the tide coming in, Parliament would be asking May to do something that, at least under some circumstances, is not possible. If they want to make sure No Deal is off the table then they have to vote for Deal.
Indeed because the alternative would be to threaten to go back to Brussels and agree further concessions saying she has been instructed to do so by Parliament. Which would presumably (?) then not be subject to a meaningful vote.
No idea to be honest. I have lost track of where we stand with regard to the procedures now. I assume it will all depend on who makes a challenge to the Speaker and what he decides since precedent seems to have gone out the window.
In short term, yes. But Farage will soon have it rebadged as the 'This is not the Brexit you voted for' party and be around for next GE.
Brexit will result in economic decline and rising prices, that will feed into his betrayal narrative.
But after Brexit, how could he deliver a different Brexit?
Farage, like the whole ultra Brexit clan, don't give two hoots about the detail of delivery. It is just protest and vandalism for the sake of causing trouble.
Brexit: John Bercow 'conspiring' with remainers in cosy curry house talks
SPEAKER John Bercow has been accused of "conspiring" with opponents of Brexit after he held a cosy meeting with arch-Remainer Tory MP Ken Clarke in a curry house last week.
I don't think I can agree with that. Ethics do vary geographically and temporally. They are based on a complex set of historical and societal pressures and I do believe it is wrong to say that, for example, some practices we now consider to be unethical, should be judged in the same way when looking at the past.
Yes, I guess I was thinking UK and 2019 when I typed that.
Certainly you're right to say ethics differ from ours in other parts of the world and from those in our part of the world in the past.
Judging them? Well that is a tricky one.
Examples -
In some countries it is unethical NOT to offer bribes to oil the wheels of commerce. In some countries it is (I think?) ethical to carry out FGM on your* daughter. In Britain in days gone by it was ethical to trade in black slaves.
Should we be condemning of any or all of these? I think on balance that we should.
* To be clear, not YOUR daughter, Richard - one's daughter. It would be a no-brainer, of course, otherwise!
Is there any point in condemning them? We can all agree they are not things we want to have happen in our country but you then get into he whole debate of whether we have a right to impose our ethical values on other societies. The classic example of this of course is the way in which indigenous cultures were destroyed by European settlers (often along with the people themselves) because they held different ethical viewpoints. And now we would condemn those same settlers as unethical.
Personally I am of the view that it is a very slippery slope and not one I think we should try and slide down.
Brexit: John Bercow 'conspiring' with remainers in cosy curry house talks
SPEAKER John Bercow has been accused of "conspiring" with opponents of Brexit after he held a cosy meeting with arch-Remainer Tory MP Ken Clarke in a curry house last week.
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
It’s not that he renounced it, it’s why
“Joyless fanatic” might be a reasonable term for someone who takes no joy in beauty *because* it is “capitalistic”
Yes, nationalist populism gaining serious traction in England?
Seems to be only you and I who are losing sleep over this.
England has changed in so many ways in the last thirty years, Do we really blame the older generation for not loving it. How many same sex couples in TV adverts and soaps? How much farm land when you were a kid now soulless housing estates? How many non white faces all around, many with strange religious head garb? And is not housing, education and NHS in crisis because of uncontrolled immigration? Meanwhile, rampant information technology where making a buck comes before protecting kids or any sort of moral values. And if we played World Cup final at Wembley tomorrow you would be lucky to spot a jack, unlike 1966.
Just hand Farage the keys to Westminster now and avoid years of pointless debate.
At which point I think the Commons votes for the Deal.
What am I missing?
Boris Johnson would do anything to avoid the deal passing, including backing revocation.
No he wouldn't.
There is absolutely no way May can run the clock down to force it between her deal or crash exit. Because even with just hours left everyone will know there are still other option other than crash exit if they vote against her deal.
1. They could vote down her deal at 11th hour knowing she could revoke to prevent crash exit.
2. The could vote down her deal at 11th knowing a deal acceptable to commons could be passed by EU, parliament, even the people if put to them, that involves different red lines, and EU happy to extend to explore using different red lines.
She’s only putting pressure on herself clinging to her own deal. May is not so stupid not to realise this. Her climbdown will come sudden, without fanfare.
1. The important point you make is that she 'could' revoke but the question is whether she 'would' revoke. Personally I don't think she would.
2. I would suggest it is very unlikely that the EU would accept an 11th hour application to extend without some very specific proposals on the table which had already been agreed by Parliament.
Brexit: John Bercow 'conspiring' with remainers in cosy curry house talks
SPEAKER John Bercow has been accused of "conspiring" with opponents of Brexit after he held a cosy meeting with arch-Remainer Tory MP Ken Clarke in a curry house last week.
Brexit: John Bercow 'conspiring' with remainers in cosy curry house talks
SPEAKER John Bercow has been accused of "conspiring" with opponents of Brexit after he held a cosy meeting with arch-Remainer Tory MP Ken Clarke in a curry house last week.
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
Having read it, no. I knew all of this already and I can't understand how anyone thinks it revelatory. I would add that as most of it is personal rather than political it isn't actually especially relevant either. That might however be the MoS making an editorial decision.
A much more useful exercise would have been a deep investigation into his conduct in Haringey, where there would appear prima facie to be incitement to break the law and possible fraud involved, but the article barely touches on it.
And a still more useful exercise would be an investigation into his links with South American, East German and Czech mass murderers. Again, only mentioned in passing.
I can't help but feel this kind of thing is counterproductive. Lurid, maybe, but stories about him being a principled vegetarian until Castro offered him steak is not getting to the meat (sorry) of why he is totally unfit to hold public office.
Intrigued by your reference to Haringey. Are you able to say more?
At which point I think the Commons votes for the Deal.
What am I missing?
Boris Johnson would do anything to avoid the deal passing, including backing revocation.
No he wouldn't.
There is absolutely no way May can run the clock down to force it between her deal or crash exit. Because even with just hours left everyone will know there are still other option other than crash exit if they vote against her deal.
1. They could vote down her deal at 11th hour knowing she could revoke to prevent crash exit.
2. The could vote down her deal at 11th knowing a deal acceptable to commons could be passed by EU, parliament, even the people if put to them, that involves different red lines, and EU happy to extend to explore using different red lines.
She’s only putting pressure on herself clinging to her own deal. May is not so stupid not to realise this. Her climbdown will come sudden, without fanfare.
1. The important point you make is that she 'could' revoke but the question is whether she 'would' revoke. Personally I don't think she would.
2. I would suggest it is very unlikely that the EU would accept an 11th hour application to extend without some very specific proposals on the table which had already been agreed by Parliament.
So again you are back to wishful thinking.
Not wishful thinking 😁 its how MPs could ping it back to May to make the decision on crash brexit or not by saying she has other options than forcing them to vote fo her deal. It’s not about brexit, its about not holding the grenade when the music stops. 😁.
At which point I think the Commons votes for the Deal.
What am I missing?
Boris Johnson would do anything to avoid the deal passing, including backing revocation.
No he wouldn't.
There is absolutely no way May can run the clock down to force it between her deal or crash exit. Because even with just hours left everyone will know there are still other option other than crash exit if they vote against her deal.
1. They could vote down her deal at 11th hour knowing she could revoke to prevent crash exit.
2. The could vote down her deal at 11th knowing a deal acceptable to commons could be passed by EU, parliament, even the people if put to them, that involves different red lines, and EU happy to extend to explore using different red lines.
She’s only putting pressure on herself clinging to her own deal. May is not so stupid not to realise this. Her climbdown will come sudden, without fanfare.
1. The important point you make is that she 'could' revoke but the question is whether she 'would' revoke. Personally I don't think she would.
2. I would suggest it is very unlikely that the EU would accept an 11th hour application to extend without some very specific proposals on the table which had already been agreed by Parliament.
So again you are back to wishful thinking.
Not wishful thinking 😁 its how MPs could ping it back to May to make the decision on crash brexit or not by saying she has other options than forcing them to vote fo her deal. It’s not about brexit, its about not holding the grenade when the music stops. 😁.
Ah yes I get your point. Sorry I was looking at it from the point of view of finding a solution rather than passing the buck. I forgot we were dealing with politicians not real human beings.
That's a couple of dozen per constituency. Impressive in a way, but up against a pro-Brexit Tory party not an enormous threat.
I might be missing the point, but how have these 15,000 "signed up" to Farage's party? It doesn't appear to have a phone line, a website or anything. (No, I'm not listening to LBC in order to find out.)
Is there any point in condemning them? We can all agree they are not things we want to have happen in our country but you then get into he whole debate of whether we have a right to impose our ethical values on other societies. The classic example of this of course is the way in which indigenous cultures were destroyed by European settlers (often along with the people themselves) because they held different ethical viewpoints. And now we would condemn those same settlers as unethical.
Personally I am of the view that it is a very slippery slope and not one I think we should try and slide down.
I don't think either extreme works. Moral absolutism is arrogant and dangerous for the reasons you touch upon. But 'absolutist' relativism is too disengaged for my taste.
So, I favour case by case.
Eggs -
1. Apartheid in South Africa. 2. Polygamy in Zambia. 3. Capital Punishment in Britain.
I condemned (1) when it was happening and I think I was right to do so. (2) is happening now and I disapprove but do not condemn. (3) I think I would have condemned at the time but I cannot be sure - and I certainly would not now in hindsight condemn (or even disapprove of) those who did not condemn it.
I don't think I can agree with that. Ethics do vary geographically and temporally. They are based on a complex set of historical and societal pressures and I do believe it is wrong to say that, for example, some practices we now consider to be unethical, should be judged in the same way when looking at the past.
Yes, I guess I was thinking UK and 2019 when I typed that.
Certainly you're right to say ethics differ from ours in other parts of the world and from those in our part of the world in the past.
Judging them? Well that is a tricky one.
Examples -
In some countries it is unethical NOT to offer bribes to oil the wheels of commerce. In some countries it is (I think?) ethical to carry out FGM on your* daughter. In Britain in days gone by it was ethical to trade in black slaves.
Should we be condemning of any or all of these? I think on balance that we should.
* To be clear, not YOUR daughter, Richard - one's daughter. It would be a no-brainer, of course, otherwise!
Not actually in Britain though... there wasn’t black slaves in Britain. If you made it to British shores there was no concept of ownership.
That's a couple of dozen per constituency. Impressive in a way, but up against a pro-Brexit Tory party not an enormous threat.
I might be missing the point, but how have these 15,000 "signed up" to Farage's party? It doesn't appear to have a phone line, a website or anything. (No, I'm not listening to LBC in order to find out.)
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
Having read it, no. I knew all of this already and I can't understand how anyone thinks it revelatory. I would add that as most of it is personal rather than political it isn't actually especially relevant either. That might however be the MoS making an editorial decision.
A much more useful exercise would have been a deep investigation into his conduct in Haringey, where there would appear prima facie to be incitement to break the law and possible fraud involved, but the article barely touches on it.
And a still more useful exercise would be an investigation into his links with South American, East German and Czech mass murderers. Again, only mentioned in passing.
I can't help but feel this kind of thing is counterproductive. Lurid, maybe, but stories about him being a principled vegetarian until Castro offered him steak is not getting to the meat (sorry) of why he is totally unfit to hold public office.
Intrigued by your reference to Haringey. Are you able to say more?
It's in the article that he pressured councillors to break rate caps, withholding he information that he would not personally be liable for any fine.
Now that seems to me, bluntly, a potentially more serious matter and one in which there would be a public interest story than the fact he's a rotten husband and a pathetic manager of money, which failings are hardly uncommon among senior politicians (Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F Kennedy spring to mind just for starters). But it is barely touched on.
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
Having read it, no. I knew all of this already and I can't understand how anyone thinks it revelatory. I would add that as most of it is personal rather than political it isn't actually especially relevant either. That might however be the MoS making an editorial decision.
A much more useful exercise would have been a deep investigation into his conduct in Haringey, where there would appear prima facie to be incitement to break the law and possible fraud involved, but the article barely touches on it.
And a still more useful exercise would be an investigation into his links with South American, East German and Czech mass murderers. Again, only mentioned in passing.
I can't help but feel this kind of thing is counterproductive. Lurid, maybe, but stories about him being a principled vegetarian until Castro offered him steak is not getting to the meat (sorry) of why he is totally unfit to hold public office.
Intrigued by your reference to Haringey. Are you able to say more?
Maybe there is no real meat as to why he is unelectable other than taste. Maybe he is no less or more disentitled to win a general election than Trump or Farage.
The reason the lib dems haven't recovered isn't that everyone's still really mad at Clegg, it's that he singlehandedly destroyed the main reasons for voting for the party
They need something big and bold, to be sure. I wish them well, but even as repentant leaver I know the LDs don't even want my vote, they make that very clear.
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
Having read it, no. I knew all of this already and I can't understand how anyone thinks it revelatory. I would add that as most of it is personal rather than political it isn't actually especially relevant either. That might however be the MoS making an editorial decision.
A much more useful exercise would have been a deep investigation into his conduct in Haringey, where there would appear prima facie to be incitement to break the law and possible fraud involved, but the article barely touches on it.
And a still more useful exercise would be an investigation into his links with South American, East German and Czech mass murderers. Again, only mentioned in passing.
I can't help but feel this kind of thing is counterproductive. Lurid, maybe, but stories about him being a principled vegetarian until Castro offered him steak is not getting to the meat (sorry) of why he is totally unfit to hold public office.
Intrigued by your reference to Haringey. Are you able to say more?
Maybe there is no real meat as to why he is unelectable other than taste. Maybe he is no less or more disentitled to win a general election than Trump or Farage.
I'm happy to stipulate that Farage and Corbyn are both unelectable, but that both would be entitled to win a GE if enough people vote for their parties. As was Trump, on both counts.
Yes, nationalist populism gaining serious traction in England?
Seems to be only you and I who are losing sleep over this.
Quote the polling evidence. Quote the street riots. Wait a minute there it is......in France/Austria/Germany/Italy/Hungary/Poland....
Slightly OT but one of the interesting points at the moment is the lack of reporting of the ongoing troubles in France in the UK media.
As a devout Francophile (now that should upset TSE), one of my Sunday morning vices is reading Le Monde and it is amazing to see the fact that the protests are still going on and show no sign of ending. This was the 13th consecutive weekend of 'gilets jaunes' protests and they are occurring in every major city in France every weekend. They are not on the scale the were before Christmas but they are still enough to cause massive disruption to the French economy and daily life.
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
Having read it, no. I knew all of this already and I can't understand how anyone thinks it revelatory. I would add that as most of it is personal rather than political it isn't actually especially relevant either. That might however be the MoS making an editorial decision.
A much more useful exercise would have been a deep investigation into his conduct in Haringey, where there would appear prima facie to be incitement to break the law and possible fraud involved, but the article barely touches on it.
And a still more useful exercise would be an investigation into his links with South American, East German and Czech mass murderers. Again, only mentioned in passing.
I can't help but feel this kind of thing is counterproductive. Lurid, maybe, but stories about him being a principled vegetarian until Castro offered him steak is not getting to the meat (sorry) of why he is totally unfit to hold public office.
Intrigued by your reference to Haringey. Are you able to say more?
It's in the article that he pressured councillors to break rate caps, withholding he information that he would not personally be liable for any fine.
Now that seems to me, bluntly, a potentially more serious matter and one in which there would be a public interest story than the fact he's a rotten husband and a pathetic manager of money, which failings are hardly uncommon among senior politicians (Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F Kennedy spring to mind just for starters). But it is barely touched on.
Many politicians can’t stand the parties they represent. Some actively and publicly rage about what has become of them. I cannot recall a period in my lifetime when so many MPs have expressed so much disgust and despair with the state of their own parties. For every Tory who expresses agony about what Brexit has done to the party they used to love, there is a Labour MP voicing anguish about what Corbynism has done to the party that they have spent a lifetime serving.
The number of MPs who split off will be small, at least to begin with. It is a big decision, and too perilous for the average timorous parliamentarian, given the high hurdle presented by the British electoral system. The breakaways may be doomed to failure; they may have more success than most currently expect. Whichever it is, they will be another symptom of the chronic condition of the ugly sisters, a sickliness the voters noticed long ago.
Yes, nationalist populism gaining serious traction in England?
Seems to be only you and I who are losing sleep over this.
Quote the polling evidence. Quote the street riots. Wait a minute there it is......in France/Austria/Germany/Italy/Hungary/Poland....
Slightly OT but one of the interesting points at the moment is the lack of reporting of the ongoing troubles in France in the UK media.
As a devout Francophile (now that should upset TSE), one of my Sunday morning vices is reading Le Monde and it is amazing to see the fact that the protests are still going on and show no sign of ending. This was the 13th consecutive weekend of 'gilets jaunes' protests and they are occurring in every major city in France every weekend. They are not on the scale the were before Christmas but they are still enough to cause massive disruption to the French economy and daily life.
Gives a whole new meaning 'the French have a streak of yellow more than twelve inches weekends wide.'
OK, fair enough, so that makes three of us. Me, you and Matthew Goodwin are worried about fascism on the march in Britain. Without wishing to do ourselves down - especially you and Matthew - it is going to require a great deal more than that to fight it off.
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
Having read it, no. I knew all of this already and I can't understand how anyone thinks it revelatory. I would add that as most of it is personal rather than political it isn't actually especially relevant either. That might however be the MoS making an editorial decision.
A much more useful exercise would have been a deep investigation into his conduct in Haringey, where there would appear prima facie to be incitement to break the law and possible fraud involved, but the article barely touches on it.
And a still more useful exercise would be an investigation into his links with South American, East German and Czech mass murderers. Again, only mentioned in passing.
I can't help but feel this kind of thing is counterproductive. Lurid, maybe, but stories about him being a principled vegetarian until Castro offered him steak is not getting to the meat (sorry) of why he is totally unfit to hold public office.
Intrigued by your reference to Haringey. Are you able to say more?
It's in the article that he pressured councillors to break rate caps, withholding he information that he would not personally be liable for any fine.
Now that seems to me, bluntly, a potentially more serious matter and one in which there would be a public interest story than the fact he's a rotten husband and a pathetic manager of money, which failings are hardly uncommon among senior politicians (Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F Kennedy spring to mind just for starters). But it is barely touched on.
It was pretty much standard for the harder of the left to demand councils set unlawful budgets. It’s also a common thing from Momentum activists in CLPs trying to persuade their councillors to not carry out the Tory austerity and set budgets that don’t balance over the medium term.
Many are either clueless or just disingenious as budget setting requires the approval of the chief finance officer / treasurer.
Ps. No risk of surcharging now... no longer possible..
At which point I think the Commons votes for the Deal. What am I missing?
1. They could vote down her deal at 11th hour knowing she could revoke to prevent crash exit.
2. The could vote down her deal at 11th knowing a deal acceptable to commons could be passed by EU, parliament, even the people if put to them, that involves different red lines, and EU happy to extend to explore using different red lines.
1. The important point you make is that she 'could' revoke but the question is whether she 'would' revoke. Personally I don't think she would.
2. I would suggest it is very unlikely that the EU would accept an 11th hour application to extend without some very specific proposals on the table which had already been agreed by Parliament.
So again you are back to wishful thinking.
its how MPs could ping it back to May to make the decision on crash brexit or not by saying she has other options than forcing them to vote fo her deal. It’s not about brexit, its about not holding the grenade when the music stops.
Ah yes I get your point. Sorry I was looking at it from the point of view of finding a solution rather than passing the buck. I forgot we were dealing with politicians not real human beings.
We are in agreement, there’s politics involved in this, spin city, avoiding blame, burying skeletons. Arguably brexit would be a lot easier if politics didn’t keep getting in the way.
I think politicians across the spectrum are fearful what happens if they thwart Brexit. The vast majority of them think Brexit leaves us poorer, some convinced much from poorer, but they are paralysed by fear of what happens if they nakedly thwart the will of 17.4 million voters in black and white referendum. If they weren’t so unsure about what happens if they just knocked it on the head I think they would just knock it on the head.
At the same time I am suspicious how clear the ref result actually was. The type of remain was very clear, but the type of leave wasn’t, and mere hours after the result Cameron was in Europe asking for a brexit as close as possible to remain terms. That might actually have been a political design how they put the question?
Chair of Vote Leave is in the cabinet on side of Chequers, with all the media behind Chequers, other Brexiteers have left the cabinet hating Chequers. Meanwhile an even more BINO Norway form of Brexit probably would be endorsed by the voters in a referendum.
Unlike remain, leave actually is something that will never satisfy all leavers, is that’s fair to say?
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
Having read it, no. I knew all of this already and I can't understand how anyone thinks it revelatory. I would add that as most of it is personal rather than political it isn't actually especially relevant either. That might however be the MoS making an editorial decision.
A much more useful exercise would have been a deep investigation into his conduct in Haringey, where there would appear prima facie to be incitement to break the law and possible fraud involved, but the article barely touches on it.
And a still more useful exercise would be an investigation into his links with South American, East German and Czech mass murderers. Again, only mentioned in passing.
I can't help but feel this kind of thing is counterproductive. Lurid, maybe, but stories about him being a principled vegetarian until Castro offered him steak is not getting to the meat (sorry) of why he is totally unfit to hold public office.
Intrigued by your reference to Haringey. Are you able to say more?
It's in the article that he pressured councillors to break rate caps, withholding he information that he would not personally be liable for any fine.
Now that seems to me, bluntly, a potentially more serious matter and one in which there would be a public interest story than the fact he's a rotten husband and a pathetic manager of money, which failings are hardly uncommon among senior politicians (Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F Kennedy spring to mind just for starters). But it is barely touched on.
It was pretty much standard for the harder of the left to demand councils set unlawful budgets. It’s also a common thing from Momentum activists in CLPs trying to persuade their councillors to not carry out the Tory austerity and set budgets that don’t balance over the medium term.
Many are either clueless or just disingenious as budget setting requires the approval of the chief finance officer / treasurer.
Ps. No risk of surcharging now... no longer possible..
Yes, and they did the same in Gloucestershire in the 1990s. That still however seems more serious than his being a wretched husband, which I have commented on before (much to the annoyance of his admirers when I compared him unfavourably to Tsar Nicholas II).
Yes, nationalist populism gaining serious traction in England?
Seems to be only you and I who are losing sleep over this.
Quote the polling evidence. Quote the street riots. Wait a minute there it is......in France/Austria/Germany/Italy/Hungary/Poland....
Slightly OT but one of the interesting points at the moment is the lack of reporting of the ongoing troubles in France in the UK media.
As a devout Francophile (now that should upset TSE), one of my Sunday morning vices is reading Le Monde and it is amazing to see the fact that the protests are still going on and show no sign of ending. This was the 13th consecutive weekend of 'gilets jaunes' protests and they are occurring in every major city in France every weekend. They are not on the scale the were before Christmas but they are still enough to cause massive disruption to the French economy and daily life.
Gives a whole new meaning 'the French have a streak of yellow more than twelve inches weekends wide.'
What is amusing, and what I think would upset plenty of people on both sides of the Brexit debate, is how little it seems to matter to the French - at least as reflected by their media.
The first item on Brexit in today's Le Monde is the 6th article on their international pages - and that is to do with the choices available to EU citizens living in the UK. If they ever were that concerned about Brexit, the French at least have long ago moved on from it.
That's a couple of dozen per constituency. Impressive in a way, but up against a pro-Brexit Tory party not an enormous threat.
I might be missing the point, but how have these 15,000 "signed up" to Farage's party? It doesn't appear to have a phone line, a website or anything. (No, I'm not listening to LBC in order to find out.)
Though I was amused to see the other day that MC Mabon aka Gruff Meredith, Welsh-language rapper and creator of one of the most heinously ignored albums of the past 20 years ("The Hunt for Meaning"), has founded a nutcase Welsh independence print-our-own-money party, Cymru Sovereign.
At which point I think the Commons votes for the Deal. What am I missing?
1. They lines.
1. The important point you make is that she 'could' revoke but the question is whether she 'would' revoke. Personally I don't think she would.
2. I would suggest it is very unlikely that the EU would accept an 11th hour application to extend without some very specific proposals on the table which had already been agreed by Parliament.
So again you are back to wishful thinking.
its how MPs could ping it back to May to make the decision on crash brexit or not by saying she has other options than forcing them to vote fo her deal. It’s not about brexit, its about not holding the grenade when the music stops.
Ah yes I get your point. Sorry I was looking at it from the point of view of finding a solution rather than passing the buck. I forgot we were dealing with politicians not real human beings.
We are in agreement, there’s politics involved in this, spin city, avoiding blame, burying skeletons. Arguably brexit would be a lot easier if politics didn’t keep getting in the way.
I think politicians across the spectrum are fearful what happens if they thwart Brexit. The vast majority of them think Brexit leaves us poorer, some convinced much from poorer, but they are paralysed by fear of what happens if they nakedly thwart the will of 17.4 million voters in black and white referendum. If they weren’t so unsure about what happens if they just knocked it on the head I think they would just knock it on the head.
At the same time I am suspicious how clear the ref result actually was. The type of remain was very clear, but the type of leave wasn’t, and mere hours after the result Cameron was in Europe asking for a brexit as close as possible to remain terms. That might actually have been a political design how they put the question?
Chair of Vote Leave is in the cabinet on side of Chequers, with all the media behind Chequers, other Brexiteers have left the cabinet hating Chequers. Meanwhile an even more BINO Norway form of Brexit probably would be endorsed by the voters in a referendum.
Unlike remain, leave actually is something that will never satisfy all leavers, is that’s fair to say?
Not least because many of the leavers adopted that position in the first place because it suits them psychologically to be perpetually dissatisfied. The last thing they ever wanted was to find themselves tasked with actually making things better.
Unlike remain, leave actually is something that will never satisfy all leavers, is that’s fair to say?
I'm pretty sure that any version of May's Deal would eventually satisfy most Leavers, once the dust settles. The keys are ending freedom of movement, ECJ dominion, and outflows from the Treasury to Brussels (and CAP and CFP, to a much lesser extent). It's going to be mighty difficult for the hardliners to get people worked up about whether or not we are still aligned on regulations for widget manufacturing.
Unlike remain, leave actually is something that will never satisfy all leavers, is that’s fair to say?
I'm pretty sure that any version of May's Deal would eventually satisfy most Leavers, once the dust settles. The keys are ending freedom of movement, ECJ dominion, and outflows from the Treasury to Brussels (and CAP and CFP, to a much lesser extent). It's going to be mighty difficult for the hardliners to get people worked up about whether or not we are still aligned on regulations for widget manufacturing.
The irony of May delivering a diamond level hard Brexit and the ERG rejecting it. My own MP in a 60%leave constituency voted for the WA, but now gets colossal levels of abuse on facebook social media stories connected to local newspaper. Somehow he is a traitor who is betraying the voters.
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
Having read it, no. I knew all of this already and I can't understand how anyone thinks it revelatory. I would add that as most of it is personal rather than political it isn't actually especially relevant either. That might however be the MoS making an editorial decision.
A much more useful exercise would have been a deep investigation into his conduct in Haringey, where there would appear prima facie to be incitement to break the law and possible fraud involved, but the article barely touches on it.
And a still more useful exercise would be an investigation into his links with South American, East German and Czech mass murderers. Again, only mentioned in passing.
I can't help but feel this kind of thing is counterproductive. Lurid, maybe, but stories about him being a principled vegetarian until Castro offered him steak is not getting to the meat (sorry) of why he is totally unfit to hold public office.
Intrigued by your reference to Haringey. Are you able to say more?
Maybe there is no real meat as to why he is unelectable other than taste. Maybe he is no less or more disentitled to win a general election than Trump or Farage.
I'm happy to stipulate that Farage and Corbyn are both unelectable, but that both would be entitled to win a GE if enough people vote for their parties. As was Trump, on both counts.
So Democracy’s the problem? Despite a long and successful run for western democracy, if the wrong people keep winning we will have to switch democracy off? Tweak it, go back to having an elite or monarchy? Voters can elect to a debating or advisory chamber, nothing more. Are we beginning to see the end of Western Democracy? A break down in it working well hastening its end?
Obviously Dots would remain part of the elite as I am now, but apart from Tyndall, Z, and my mate kinabalu I’m not really sure about the rest of you on here.
OK, fair enough, so that makes three of us. Me, you and Matthew Goodwin are worried about fascism on the march in Britain. Without wishing to do ourselves down - especially you and Matthew - it is going to require a great deal more than that to fight it off.
I don't think he'll be fighting it off. Just telling the people opposing it that they don't understand the legitimate concerns of the fascists.
Not least because many of the leavers adopted that position in the first place because it suits them psychologically to be perpetually dissatisfied. The last thing they ever wanted was to find themselves tasked with actually making things better.
They are like the worm in James and the Giant Peach - 'the problem is that there is no problem?'
England has changed in so many ways in the last thirty years, Do we really blame the older generation for not loving it. How many same sex couples in TV adverts and soaps? How much farm land when you were a kid now soulless housing estates? How many non white faces all around, many with strange religious head garb? And is not housing, education and NHS in crisis because of uncontrolled immigration? Meanwhile, rampant information technology where making a buck comes before protecting kids or any sort of moral values. And if we played World Cup final at Wembley tomorrow you would be lucky to spot a jack, unlike 1966.
Just hand Farage the keys to Westminster now and avoid years of pointless debate.
A hankering for the simpler days of yore is a natural and powerful aspect of human nature and I am as prone to it as the next man. However, this should be restricted to internal musings and (by all means) enjoyable conversation. If it gets near to or into the driving seat of politics things like Brexit and Trump are what tend to happen. We go backwards as a society instead of forwards. This is not good.
The comforting thought (at least for me) is that it is unlikely to happen, not for very long anyway. By definition it cannot happen for very long.
For example, as today's millennials age they too will hark back to a lost golden age. One where your phone didn't cook your dinner - which could contain dead animal flesh - one where you watched TV on a screen rather than on the back of your eyeballs, where gratuitous physical travel was commonplace, where gay marriage was purely voluntary.
They will look back with great fondness on all of this but they will NOT insist that the country goes back there and drag everyone else with them. Why not? Because they will confine their reactionary impulses to themselves - as is the natural order of things.
They will look back in fondness to all of this but they will NOT insist that the country goes back there and drag everyone else with them. Why not? Because they will confine their reactionary impulses to themselves - as is the natural order of things.
Really?
Far from 'the natural order of things,' that would make them unique among all generations in history.
Have you any idea how much ink was spilled and how many trees died in the years 1880-1914 on the need to get away from an industrial economy and back to a system of peasant farming? And how that was itself a development of Chartism?
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
Having read it, no. I knew all of this already and I can't understand how anyone thinks it revelatory. I would add that as most of it is personal rather than political it isn't actually especially relevant either. That might however be the MoS making an editorial decision.
A much more useful exercise would have been a deep investigation into his conduct in Haringey, where there would appear prima facie to be incitement to break the law and possible fraud involved, but the article barely touches on it.
And a still more useful exercise would be an investigation into his links with South American, East German and Czech mass murderers. Again, only mentioned in passing.
I can't help but feel this kind of thing is counterproductive. Lurid, maybe, but stories about him being a principled vegetarian until Castro offered him steak is not getting to the meat (sorry) of why he is totally unfit to hold public office.
Intrigued by your reference to Haringey. Are you able to say more?
Maybe there is no real meat as to why he is unelectable other than taste. Maybe he is no less or more disentitled to win a general election than Trump or Farage.
I'm happy to stipulate that Farage and Corbyn are both unelectable, but that both would be entitled to win a GE if enough people vote for their parties. As was Trump, on both counts.
So Democracy’s the problem? Despite a long and successful run for western democracy, if the wrong people keep winning we will have to switch democracy off? Tweak it, go back to having an elite or monarchy? Voters can elect to a debating or advisory chamber, nothing more. Are we beginning to see the end of Western Democracy? A break down in it working well hastening its end?
Obviously Dots would remain part of the elite as I am now, but apart from Tyndall, Z, and my mate kinabalu I’m not really sure about the rest of you on here.
I am afraid I would not qualify. To my eternal disappointment I am not one of the elite in any sense of the word. Perpetual, studied mediocrity is my forte.
England has changed in so many ways in the last thirty years, Do we really blame the older generation for not loving it. How many same sex couples in TV adverts and soaps? How much farm land when you were a kid now soulless housing estates? How many non white faces all around, many with strange religious head garb? And is not housing, education and NHS in crisis because of uncontrolled immigration? Meanwhile, rampant information technology where making a buck comes before protecting kids or any sort of moral values. And if we played World Cup final at Wembley tomorrow you would be lucky to spot a jack, unlike 1966.
Just hand Farage the keys to Westminster now and avoid years of pointless debate.
A hankering for the simpler days of yore is a natural and powerful aspect of human nature and I am as prone to it as the next man. However, this should be confined to internal musings and (by all means) enjoyable conversation. If it gets near to or into the driving seat of politics things like Brexit and Trump are what tend to happen. We go backwards as a society instead of forwards. This is not good.
The comforting thought (at least for me) is that it is unlikely to happen, not for very long anyway. By definition it cannot happen for very long.
For example, as today's millennials age they too will hark back to a lost golden age. One where your phone didn't cook your dinner - which could contain dead animal flesh - one where you watched TV on a screen rather than on the back of your eyeballs, where gratuitous physical travel was commonplace, where gay marriage was purely voluntary.
They will look back in fondness to all of this but they will NOT insist that the country goes back there and drag everyone else with them. Why not? Because they will confine their reactionary impulses to themselves - as is the natural order of things.
That’s very deep. If I was smoking something right now I would probably call it profound. One of your 57 variety’s is “deep” Maybe Sunday Lunchtime PB is under influence of wine like Thirsty Thursday is.
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
Having read it, no. I knew all of this already and I can't understand how anyone thinks it revelatory. I would add that as most of it is personal rather than political it isn't actually especially relevant either. That might however be the MoS making an editorial decision.
A much more useful exercise would have been a deep investigation into his conduct in Haringey, where there would appear prima facie to be incitement to break the law and possible fraud involved, but the article barely touches on it.
And a still more useful exercise would be an investigation into his links with South American, East German and Czech mass murderers. Again, only mentioned in passing.
Lurid, maybe, but stories about him being a principled vegetarian until Castro offered him steak is not getting to the meat (sorry) of why he is totally unfit to hold public office.
Intrigued by your reference to Haringey. Are you able to say more?
Maybe there is no real meat as to why he is unelectable other than taste. Maybe he is no less or more disentitled to win a general election than Trump or Farage.
I'm happy to stipulate that Farage and Corbyn are both unelectable, but that both would be entitled to win a GE if enough people vote for their parties. As was Trump, on both counts.
So Democracy’s the problem? Despite a long and successful run for western democracy, if the wrong people keep winning we will have to switch democracy off? Tweak it, go back to having an elite or monarchy? Voters can elect to a debating or advisory chamber, nothing more. Are we beginning to see the end of Western Democracy? A break down in it working well hastening its end?
Obviously Dots would remain part of the elite as I am now, but apart from Tyndall, Z, and my mate kinabalu I’m not really sure about the rest of you on here.
I am afraid I would not qualify. To my eternal disappointment I am not one of the elite in any sense of the word. Perpetual, studied mediocrity is my forte.
Do you actually get a choice? What if leaders of the elite say, no, you cant stand for election to the commoner court, you are part of the ruling establishment with the rest of us. 🙃
Dots have been ruling over the human race for the last 33 thousand years. 🙃 🙃 🙃
Why have the Mail splashed this story? Most of the claims are rehashed so has this investigative chap turned up anything everyone didn't already know if could guess?
Having read it, no. I knew all of this already and I can't understand how anyone thinks it revelatory. I would add that as most of it is personal rather than political it isn't actually especially relevant either. That might however be the MoS making an editorial decision.
A much more useful exercise would have been a deep investigation into his conduct in Haringey, where there would appear prima facie to be incitement to break the law and possible fraud involved, but the article barely touches on it.
And a still more useful exercise would be an investigation into his links with South American, East German and Czech mass murderers. Again, only mentioned in passing.
I can't help but feel this kind of thing is counterproductive. Lurid, maybe, but stories about him being a principled vegetarian until Castro offered him steak is not getting to the meat (sorry) of why he is totally unfit to hold public office.
Intrigued by your reference to Haringey. Are you able to say more?
Maybe there is no real meat as to why he is unelectable other than taste. Maybe he is no less or more disentitled to win a general election than Trump or Farage.
I'm happy to stipulate that Farage and Corbyn are both unelectable, but that both would be entitled to win a GE if enough people vote for their parties. As was Trump, on both counts.
So Democracy’s the problem? Despite a long and successful run for western democracy, if the wrong people keep winning we will have to switch democracy off? Tweak it, go back to having an elite or monarchy? Voters can elect to a debating or advisory chamber, nothing more. Are we beginning to see the end of Western Democracy? A break down in it working well hastening its end?
Obviously Dots would remain part of the elite as I am now, but apart from Tyndall, Z, and my mate kinabalu I’m not really sure about the rest of you on here.
I am afraid I would not qualify. To my eternal disappointment I am not one of the elite in any sense of the word. Perpetual, studied mediocrity is my forte.
Channelling Groucho Marx, any elite that would have me would not be an elite in any meaningful way.
That's a couple of dozen per constituency. Impressive in a way, but up against a pro-Brexit Tory party not an enormous threat.
I might be missing the point, but how have these 15,000 "signed up" to Farage's party? It doesn't appear to have a phone line, a website or anything. (No, I'm not listening to LBC in order to find out.)
They do have a website https://www.thebrexitparty.org/ and a Paypal account for donations, but the front page says “coming soon, register your interest now” as opposed to “join here for £20”.
If I were a betting man (ahem!) I’d say that most of those 15,000 haven’t put their hand in their pocket to actually join the party.
Not actually in Britain though... there wasn’t black slaves in Britain. If you made it to British shores there was no concept of ownership.
OK I am happy to (and certainly want to) believe that. General point was more that the trading of them (in overseas territories) was at one time not considered unethical in Britain. Or TBF in several other countries.
Far from 'the natural order of things,' that would make them unique among all generations in history.
Have you any idea how much ink was spilled and how many trees died in the years 1880-1914 on the need to get away from an industrial economy and back to a system of peasant farming? And how that was itself a development of Chartism?
Ah.
Well no, pre 1970s history is not to put it mildly my absolute strongest point. But surely as a general rule, with many exceptions of course, such as the one you point to here, we can say without a chorus of derision and disapproval that society does in the long run progress rather than regress?
That’s very deep. If I was smoking something right now I would probably call it profound. One of your 57 variety’s is “deep” Maybe Sunday Lunchtime PB is under influence of wine like Thirsty Thursday is.
:-)
Yes I'm deep. I'm deep as anything. Nothing but the most intense Light can penetrate.
Comments
This will not end well for the UK.
Certainly you're right to say ethics differ from ours in other parts of the world and from those in our part of the world in the past.
Judging them? Well that is a tricky one.
Examples -
In some countries it is unethical NOT to offer bribes to oil the wheels of commerce.
In some countries it is (I think?) ethical to carry out FGM on your* daughter.
In Britain in days gone by it was ethical to trade in black slaves.
Should we be condemning of any or all of these? I think on balance that we should.
* To be clear, not YOUR daughter, Richard - one's daughter. It would be a no-brainer, of course, otherwise!
Brexit will result in economic decline and rising prices, that will feed into his betrayal narrative.
Which faith did he lose first, I wonder?
1. They could vote down her deal at 11th hour knowing she could revoke to prevent crash exit.
2. The could vote down her deal at 11th knowing a deal acceptable to commons could be passed by EU, parliament, even the people if put to them, that involves different red lines, and EU happy to extend to explore using different red lines.
She’s only putting pressure on herself clinging to her own deal. May is not so stupid not to realise this. Her climbdown will come sudden, without fanfare.
Seems to be only you and I who are losing sleep over this.
Neither is it a predictor of intelligence. I view religious faith as irrational and kind of dumb - but I recognize that I must be wrong because there are plenty of people who are both cleverer than me and deeply religious.
SPEAKER John Bercow has been accused of "conspiring" with opponents of Brexit after he held a cosy meeting with arch-Remainer Tory MP Ken Clarke in a curry house last week.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1085075/brexit-news-john-bercow-ken-clarke-meeting-brexit-talks-curry-house
Personally I am of the view that it is a very slippery slope and not one I think we should try and slide down.
“Joyless fanatic” might be a reasonable term for someone who takes no joy in beauty *because* it is “capitalistic”
Meanwhile, rampant information technology where making a buck comes before protecting kids or any sort of moral values. And if we played World Cup final at Wembley tomorrow you would be lucky to spot a jack, unlike 1966.
Just hand Farage the keys to Westminster now and avoid years of pointless debate.
2. I would suggest it is very unlikely that the EU would accept an 11th hour application to extend without some very specific proposals on the table which had already been agreed by Parliament.
So again you are back to wishful thinking.
For a speaker who should be neutral,the man only leaves suspicion.
Still looks like tough times ahead, even more inflexible than our situation.
Tens of thousands gathered in Madrid for a protest by right-wing parties opposed to a Spanish government plan to ease tension in the Catalonia region.
The centre-right Popular Party (PP) and Ciudadanos (Citizens) called the protest after PM Pedro Sánchez offered separatists a rapporteur for talks.
The right considers the offer a betrayal and surrender. The separatists have rejected the offer anyway.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47190135
So, I favour case by case.
Eggs -
1. Apartheid in South Africa.
2. Polygamy in Zambia.
3. Capital Punishment in Britain.
I condemned (1) when it was happening and I think I was right to do so. (2) is happening now and I disapprove but do not condemn. (3) I think I would have condemned at the time but I cannot be sure - and I certainly would not now in hindsight condemn (or even disapprove of) those who did not condemn it.
https://twitter.com/BritishGQ/status/1093758861104893952
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/Registrations?currentPage=1&rows=30&sort=ApprovedDate&order=desc&open=filter&et=pp&et=ppm®ister=gb®Status=registered&optCols=EntityStatusName
Now that seems to me, bluntly, a potentially more serious matter and one in which there would be a public interest story than the fact he's a rotten husband and a pathetic manager of money, which failings are hardly uncommon among senior politicians (Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F Kennedy spring to mind just for starters). But it is barely touched on.
But perhaps it will. Rule of Thumb is that things that have been around for a long time carry on being around.
Even applies to people, these days, hence our NHS and pensions time bomb.
As a devout Francophile (now that should upset TSE), one of my Sunday morning vices is reading Le Monde and it is amazing to see the fact that the protests are still going on and show no sign of ending. This was the 13th consecutive weekend of 'gilets jaunes' protests and they are occurring in every major city in France every weekend. They are not on the scale the were before Christmas but they are still enough to cause massive disruption to the French economy and daily life.
https Thank you.
The number of MPs who split off will be small, at least to begin with. It is a big decision, and too perilous for the average timorous parliamentarian, given the high hurdle presented by the British electoral system. The breakaways may be doomed to failure; they may have more success than most currently expect. Whichever it is, they will be another symptom of the chronic condition of the ugly sisters, a sickliness the voters noticed long ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/10/why-the-sickly-ugly-sisters-of-our-politics-deserve-to-suffer-the-splits
inchesweekends wide.'Many are either clueless or just disingenious as budget setting requires the approval of the chief finance officer / treasurer.
Ps. No risk of surcharging now... no longer possible..
I think politicians across the spectrum are fearful what happens if they thwart Brexit. The vast majority of them think Brexit leaves us poorer, some convinced much from poorer, but they are paralysed by fear of what happens if they nakedly thwart the will of 17.4 million voters in black and white referendum. If they weren’t so unsure about what happens if they just knocked it on the head I think they would just knock it on the head.
At the same time I am suspicious how clear the ref result actually was. The type of remain was very clear, but the type of leave wasn’t, and mere hours after the result Cameron was in Europe asking for a brexit as close as possible to remain terms. That might actually have been a political design how they put the question?
Chair of Vote Leave is in the cabinet on side of Chequers, with all the media behind Chequers, other Brexiteers have left the cabinet hating Chequers. Meanwhile an even more BINO Norway form of Brexit probably would be endorsed by the voters in a referendum.
Unlike remain, leave actually is something that will never satisfy all leavers, is that’s fair to say?
The first item on Brexit in today's Le Monde is the 6th article on their international pages - and that is to do with the choices available to EU citizens living in the UK. If they ever were that concerned about Brexit, the French at least have long ago moved on from it.
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP4048
http://www.cymrusovereign.cymru
According to Wikipedia, "The party stood in Newport West in the 2016 Welsh Assembly elections, where it came in last place with 38 votes".
Obviously Dots would remain part of the elite as I am now, but apart from Tyndall, Z, and my mate kinabalu I’m not really sure about the rest of you on here.
The comforting thought (at least for me) is that it is unlikely to happen, not for very long anyway. By definition it cannot happen for very long.
For example, as today's millennials age they too will hark back to a lost golden age. One where your phone didn't cook your dinner - which could contain dead animal flesh - one where you watched TV on a screen rather than on the back of your eyeballs, where gratuitous physical travel was commonplace, where gay marriage was purely voluntary.
They will look back with great fondness on all of this but they will NOT insist that the country goes back there and drag everyone else with them. Why not? Because they will confine their reactionary impulses to themselves - as is the natural order of things.
Far from 'the natural order of things,' that would make them unique among all generations in history.
Have you any idea how much ink was spilled and how many trees died in the years 1880-1914 on the need to get away from an industrial economy and back to a system of peasant farming? And how that was itself a development of Chartism?
One of your 57 variety’s is “deep”
Maybe Sunday Lunchtime PB is under influence of wine like Thirsty Thursday is.
Dots have been ruling over the human race for the last 33 thousand years. 🙃 🙃 🙃
Except the big parties support it, and Dan gets paid by a big corporate that supports it...
Apart from that
If I were a betting man (ahem!) I’d say that most of those 15,000 haven’t put their hand in their pocket to actually join the party.
NEW THREAD
Understanding & Confronting/Challenging versus Dog Whistling & Pandering.
Such an important line to draw. And not too hard to draw either IMO.
Well no, pre 1970s history is not to put it mildly my absolute strongest point. But surely as a general rule, with many exceptions of course, such as the one you point to here, we can say without a chorus of derision and disapproval that society does in the long run progress rather than regress?
Yes I'm deep. I'm deep as anything. Nothing but the most intense Light can penetrate.