About f*cking time! It depends how many he takes with him. If Labour MPs had any integrity it would be 170ish (i.e. those that have no confidence in Corbyn).
Are you a member?
For now, yes.
Let's see how Brexit unfolds to see if I continue to be a member.
I am losing faith to be honest. Just look at the Labour front bench. The fact that Keir Starmer (who's not that great) is head and shoulders above any one else is a worry
If Remaining is everything to you maybe you will end up Leaving the party.
To me its a side issue compared to replacing the Tories in Government
For me as a life long member Brexit is a massive issue and I am furious with Corbyn for going down that path, against the will of the membership. I have lost faith in him but the Party is bigger than any one individual and I will continue to support it wholeheartedly.
Excepting Cardiff, every Labour constituency in Wales voted to Leave.
And?
So, it would seem Corbyn's views are in line with most Welsh voters.
E.g., in Blaenau Gwent 62 per cent voted Leave. They can't all be Tories, because there are hardly any Tories in Blaenau Gwent. They must be overwhelmingly Labour voters.
I said Labour members as you well know. Overwhelmingly members want to remain. These are the foot soldiers who do the hard graft at elections. Corbyn upsets them at his peril.
Yes, I know you said Labour members.
And I said Labour voters. Deliberately.
An MP represents the voters, not just the members.
To be fair, it’s only not a big story because the rules have changed. Five years ago a minister calling dozens of his own party’s MPs traitors and telling them to leave would have had a fair impact. Back then not eating a bacon sandwich properly got you all over the front pages.
Yes, but right now it is just lame. What a letdown.
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
We had Corbyn/Abbott and Mandelson/Miliband in the same party. At one point Galloway too though he eventually got expelled. What do you think?
Were dozens repeatedly and openly spewing such contempt at one another though? One or two I can see, and a larger group really not liking others, hence why you had Corbyn and the awkward squad after all, but these Tories just seem something else - other than brief moments of residual tribal loyalty to the brand they appear to have nothing in common with one another and loathe each other's personalities, politics and principles.
Yes.
It wasn't just personality we had Iraq and other divisions that got pretty nasty.
Iraq was a rather unique issue, and they got by as a party just fine in the years afterwards. They happily stood together for elections afterwards. How are some of these Tories credibly going to pretend to be able to stand under the same banner?
To be fair, it’s only not a big story because the rules have changed. Five years ago a minister calling dozens of his own party’s MPs traitors and telling them to leave would have had a fair impact. Back then not eating a bacon sandwich properly got you all over the front pages.
Yes, but right now it is just lame. What a letdown.
To be fair, it’s only not a big story because the rules have changed. Five years ago a minister calling dozens of his own party’s MPs traitors and telling them to leave would have had a fair impact. Back then not eating a bacon sandwich properly got you all over the front pages.
Yes, but right now it is just lame. What a letdown.
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
We had Corbyn/Abbott and Mandelson/Miliband in the same party. At one point Galloway too though he eventually got expelled. What do you think?
Were dozens repeatedly and openly spewing such contempt at one another though? One or two I can see, and a larger group really not liking others, hence why you had Corbyn and the awkward squad after all, but these Tories just seem something else - other than brief moments of residual tribal loyalty to the brand they appear to have nothing in common with one another and loathe each other's personalities, politics and principles.
Yes.
It wasn't just personality we had Iraq and other divisions that got pretty nasty.
Iraq was a rather unique issue, and they got by as a party just fine in the years afterwards. They happily stood together for elections afterwards. How are some of these Tories credibly going to pretend to be able to stand under the same banner?
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
We had Corbyn/Abbott and Mandelson/Miliband in the same party. At one point Galloway too though he eventually got expelled. What do you think?
Were dozens repeatedly and openly spewing such contempt at one another though? One or two I can see, and a larger group really not liking others, hence why you had Corbyn and the awkward squad after all, but these Tories just seem something else - other than brief moments of residual tribal loyalty to the brand they appear to have nothing in common with one another and loathe each other's personalities, politics and principles.
Yes.
It wasn't just personality we had Iraq and other divisions that got pretty nasty.
Iraq was a rather unique issue, and they got by as a party just fine in the years afterwards. They happily stood together for elections afterwards. How are some of these Tories credibly going to pretend to be able to stand under the same banner?
Brexit will be in the past eventually.
Not for many many years. Whatever happens in the weeks to come Brexit will require ongoing very difficult decisions which they will continue to viscerally disagree about.
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
Well, in those days it was all about personality. Once you drilled down, there wasn't much difference in policy - both were hawks, both were statist, both were viciously tribal and both believed fiercely in their own superhuman brilliance, boh were fundamentally uninterested in the poor ahead of the electorate. The question therefore became whether to support a third rate snake oil salesman with an extraordinary genius for gathering votes or a violent narcissistic bully with a big brain and a still bigger ego.
And as a result, there was always a feeling matters could be smoothed over when they moved on. But at the moment both parties are brutally riven on policy. Leaving aside Macdonnell, who is scum, the others are just quite grey. Meanwhile, on the key policy issues of which Brexit is only the most visible the policy gulfs have become veritable chasms. There is nothing to suggest therefore that their departure would ease matters.
Do you vote for any of the political parties ?
Despite myself, I can’t help but like John McDonnell. He always comes across well and seems pragmatic. He probably isn’t - but he is very convincing.
Agreed. I have had more than a few epiphanies these last months, as one MP after another (on all sides or the argument) has been revealed as a total, dribbling cretin. Same goes for lots pf pundits and "experts" - again, on both sides - who've turned out to be wholly clueless. But the MPs are the worst. My daughter's new hamster would do better in government than this caravan of imbeciles, charlatans and cowards.
Deary me.
In fairness we're not seeing individual MPs constantly changing their minds, apart from the "for two pins I'd resign from my party/Cabinet" types. Pretty much everyone else is quite consistent, to the point of stubbornness.
But I wonder why we think the EU would agree to a lengthy delay in A50. What reason have they to think that we will do more than continue to go round in circles? There's a German saying, "Besser ein schreckliches Ende als ein Schreck ohne Ende" (better a horrible end than an endless horror).
Look at it the other way though: What harm is the UK doing Germany by going round in endless circles? It's not like anyone except the British are wasting time on negotiations at this point - it's basically TMay having a meeting with the Commssion once every fortnight where she demands that they reopen her deal and they tell her to piss off. Meanwhile the UK will still presumably be paying its (net positive) bills, and everybody's ignoring it in decision-making so it's not doing any damage there.
I mean, a tidy resolution would be better, but No Deal would be really bad for everyone, so given a crunch situation where the UK has failed to pass the deal and asked for a last-minute extension, wouldn't you rather they just keep driving around the roundabout instead of crashing their car into you?
She's not British. She gave up that moral right the day she decided to join IS.
She is British. You don't stop being British due to wicked behaviour. Ian Brady was British until the day he died. This teenage girl who was indoctrinated into Islamic fascism and ran away at 15 to be a jihadi bride and based on her interview is unrepentant is. .. British.
I thought that all supporters of IS had to pledge allegiance to Islamic State, a Bay'a. Legally it may not mean she has given up British Citizenship, morally maybe a different answer.
No, the UK doesn't accept any oath of allegiance to another sovereign or state (whether recognised by the UK or not) as an expatriating act, so even though eighteen months or so ago I denounced 'Er Maj and all her works to become a US citizen, the UK doesn't care and I am still a British citizen as well (the US does not require me do anything further than swear their oath).
To positively renounce British citizenship you have to apply to the Home Secretary who will only grant it if you already have a another citizenship or need to renounce British citizenship to acquire another one, and in that case if you don't acquire that other citizenship within a set time, the renunciation lapses. Since 2002 British citizens can be deprived of their citizenship by the Home Secretary for doing very naughty terroristic things, but only if they won't be made stateless by doing so. Naturalized citizens can be deprived of their British citizenship if they obtained it through fraud or false statements etc, even if they will be made stateless as a result.
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
Well, in those days it was all about personality. Once you drilled down, there wasn't much difference in policy - both were hawks, both were statist, both were viciously tribal and both believed fiercely in their own superhuman brilliance, boh were fundamentally uninterested in the poor ahead of the electorate. The question therefore became whether to support a third rate snake oil salesman with an extraordinary genius for gathering votes or a violent narcissistic bully with a big brain and a still bigger ego.
And as a result, there was always a feeling matters could be smoothed over when they moved on. But at the moment both parties are brutally riven on policy. Leaving aside Macdonnell, who is scum, the others are just quite grey. Meanwhile, on the key policy issues of which Brexit is only the most visible the policy gulfs have become veritable chasms. There is nothing to suggest therefore that their departure would ease matters.
Do you vote for any of the political parties ?
Despite myself, I can’t help but like John McDonnell. He always comes across well and seems pragmatic. He probably isn’t - but he is very convincing.
I prefer Corbyn to McDonnell. There's a harder edge to McDonnell, and he lacks even Corbyn's presentation of consistent principle (even if one disagrees with his principles).
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
Well, in those days it was all about personality. Once you drilled down, there wasn't much difference in policy - both were hawks, both were statist, both were viciously tribal and both believed fiercely in their own superhuman brilliance, boh were fundamentally uninterested in the poor ahead of the electorate. The question therefore became whether to support a third rate snake oil salesman with an extraordinary genius for gathering votes or a violent narcissistic bully with a big brain and a still bigger ego.
And as a result, there was always a feeling matters could be smoothed over when they moved on. But at the moment both parties are brutally riven on policy. Leaving aside Macdonnell, who is scum, the others are just quite grey. Meanwhile, on the key policy issues of which Brexit is only the most visible the policy gulfs have become veritable chasms. There is nothing to suggest therefore that their departure would ease matters.
Do you vote for any of the political parties ?
Despite myself, I can’t help but like John McDonnell. He always comes across well and seems pragmatic. He probably isn’t - but he is very convincing.
We'd be doing better in the polls with McDonnell as leader. He must be cursing that it wasn't his turn to be the token lefty candidate in 2015.
He's also a 'Remain and Reform' advocate so that would make our EU position easier to sell to the membership.
Roses are red Violets are blue Brexit's still going OH FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST CAN'T SOMETHING MEANINGFUL ACTUALLY HAPPEN AND WE CAN ALL MOVE ON WITH OUR LIVES.
I don't think I'm very good at poetry.
I don't know about poetry, but you're jolly good at picking nom de plumes. Or should that be nom de guerres?
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
Well, in those days it was all about personality. Once you drilled down, there wasn't much difference in policy - both were hawks, both were statist, both were viciously tribal and both believed fiercely in their own superhuman brilliance, boh were fundamentally uninterested in the poor ahead of the electorate. The question therefore became whether to support a third rate snake oil salesman with an extraordinary genius for gathering votes or a violent narcissistic bully with a big brain and a still bigger ego.
And as a result, there was always a feeling matters could be smoothed over when they moved on. But at the moment both parties are brutally riven on policy. Leaving aside Macdonnell, who is scum, the others are just quite grey. Meanwhile, on the key policy issues of which Brexit is only the most visible the policy gulfs have become veritable chasms. There is nothing to suggest therefore that their departure would ease matters.
Do you vote for any of the political parties ?
Despite myself, I can’t help but like John McDonnell. He always comes across well and seems pragmatic. He probably isn’t - but he is very convincing.
I would agree. He certainly comes across very well.Always very smart in interviews . In my opinion he is more hungry for power than Corbyn and that is why he is pragmatic. As he sees the current situation as a once in a generation chance of real change.
About f*cking time! It depends how many he takes with him. If Labour MPs had any integrity it would be 170ish (i.e. those that have no confidence in Corbyn).
Are you a member?
For now, yes.
Let's see how Brexit unfolds to see if I continue to be a member.
I am losing faith to be honest. Just look at the Labour front bench. The fact that Keir Starmer (who's not that great) is head and shoulders above any one else is a worry
If Remaining is everything to you maybe you will end up Leaving the party.
To me its a side issue compared to replacing the Tories in Government
For me as a life long member Brexit is a massive issue and I am furious with Corbyn for going down that path, against the will of the membership. I have lost faith in him but the Party is bigger than any one individual and I will continue to support it wholeheartedly.
Excepting Cardiff, every Labour constituency in Wales voted to Leave.
And?
So, it would seem Corbyn's views are in line with most Welsh voters.
E.g., in Blaenau Gwent 62 per cent voted Leave. They can't all be Tories, because there are hardly any Tories in Blaenau Gwent. They must be overwhelmingly Labour voters.
I said Labour members as you well know. Overwhelmingly members want to remain. These are the foot soldiers who do the hard graft at elections. Corbyn upsets them at his peril.
Yes, I know you said Labour members.
And I said Labour voters. Deliberately.
An MP represents the voters, not just the members.
Even in Leave voting areas, most Labour voters were for Remain.
To be fair, it’s only not a big story because the rules have changed. Five years ago a minister calling dozens of his own party’s MPs traitors and telling them to leave would have had a fair impact. Back then not eating a bacon sandwich properly got you all over the front pages.
Yes, but right now it is just lame. What a letdown.
Boo I am off to bed
Chukka now quitting on 29th February!!!!
What year?
In the year 2525 Chuka Was still alive Hadn't quit yet
Not a wholly convincing article. The Irish issue would certainly be very live but Scotland much less so. It depends how bad it gets but would the Scots want a hard border with England? As for Wales, views on Brexit don't differ much to those in England.
As for England I don't see why Labour couldn't be the largest party if it got its act together. There's nothing very right wing about England.
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
Well, in those days it was all about personality. Once you drilled down, there wasn't much difference in policy - both were hawks, both were statist, both were viciously tribal and both believed fiercely in their own superhuman brilliance, boh were fundamentally uninterested in the poor ahead of the electorate. The question therefore became whether to support a third rate snake oil salesman with an extraordinary genius for gathering votes or a violent narcissistic bully with a big brain and a still bigger ego.
And as a result, there was always a feeling matters could be smoothed over when they moved on. But at the moment both parties are brutally riven on policy. Leaving aside Macdonnell, who is scum, the others are just quite grey. Meanwhile, on the key policy issues of which Brexit is only the most visible the policy gulfs have become veritable chasms. There is nothing to suggest therefore that their departure would ease matters.
Do you vote for any of the political parties ?
Despite myself, I can’t help but like John McDonnell. He always comes across well and seems pragmatic. He probably isn’t - but he is very convincing.
I prefer Corbyn to McDonnell. There's a harder edge to McDonnell, and he lacks even Corbyn's presentation of consistent principle (even if one disagrees with his principles).
McDonnell comes across as Met detective from the 1970's, at about the time when the Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark, said of the Met that a good police force catches more criminals than it employes.
In short, superficially charming and plausible but utterly untrustworthy and more than willing to condone the use of violence to get what he wants.
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
We had Corbyn/Abbott and Mandelson/Miliband in the same party. At one point Galloway too though he eventually got expelled. What do you think?
Were dozens repeatedly and openly spewing such contempt at one another though? One or two I can see, and a larger group really not liking others, hence why you had Corbyn and the awkward squad after all, but these Tories just seem something else - other than brief moments of residual tribal loyalty to the brand they appear to have nothing in common with one another and loathe each other's personalities, politics and principles.
Yes.
It wasn't just personality we had Iraq and other divisions that got pretty nasty.
Iraq was a rather unique issue, and they got by as a party just fine in the years afterwards. They happily stood together for elections afterwards. How are some of these Tories credibly going to pretend to be able to stand under the same banner?
Brexit will be in the past eventually.
Not for many many years. Whatever happens in the weeks to come Brexit will require ongoing very difficult decisions which they will continue to viscerally disagree about.
No different to Iraq.
In 2005 Iraq was in the past.
The troubles Iraq created, the very difficult decisions and visceral disagreements still continued.
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
Well, in those days it was all about personality. Once you drilled down, there wasn't much difference in policy - both were hawks, both were statist, both were viciously tribal and both believed fiercely in their own superhuman brilliance, boh were fundamentally uninterested in the poor ahead of the electorate. The question therefore became whether to support a third rate snake oil salesman with an extraordinary genius for gathering votes or a violent narcissistic bully with a big brain and a still bigger ego.
And as a result, there was always a feeling matters could be smoothed over when they moved on. But at the moment both parties are brutally riven on policy. Leaving aside Macdonnell, who is scum, the others are just quite grey. Meanwhile, on the key policy issues of which Brexit is only the most visible the policy gulfs have become veritable chasms. There is nothing to suggest therefore that their departure would ease matters.
Do you vote for any of the political parties ?
Despite myself, I can’t help but like John McDonnell. He always comes across well and seems pragmatic. He probably isn’t - but he is very convincing.
I prefer Corbyn to McDonnell. There's a harder edge to McDonnell, and he lacks even Corbyn's presentation of consistent principle (even if one disagrees with his principles).
McDonnell comes across as Met detective from the 1970's, at about the time when the Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark, said of the Met that a good police force catches more criminals than it employes.
In short, superficially charming and plausible but utterly untrustworthy and more than willing to condone the use of violence to get what he wants.
Just back from a Valentine day’s meal out and I see that the utterly pathetic meaningless gesturism is still persisting in Westminster. When are these spoiled brats going to grow up?
Agreed. I have had more than a few epiphanies these last months, as one MP after another (on all sides or the argument) has been revealed as a total, dribbling cretin. Same goes for lots pf pundits and "experts" - again, on both sides - who've turned out to be wholly clueless. But the MPs are the worst. My daughter's new hamster would do better in government than this caravan of imbeciles, charlatans and cowards.
Deary me.
In fairness we're not seeing individual MPs constantly changing their minds, apart from the "for two pins I'd resign from my party/Cabinet" types. Pretty much everyone else is quite consistent, to the point of stubbornness.
But I wonder why we think the EU would agree to a lengthy delay in A50. What reason have they to think that we will do more than continue to go round in circles? There's a German saying, "Besser ein schreckliches Ende als ein Schreck ohne Ende" (better a horrible end than an endless horror).
The 21 month extension being talked about in the hotel bar does have its attractions. It has the same duration and core features as the WA, but with the advantage of not needing a meaningful vote passing. While the practice is much the same, it does mean that instead of being out but pretending to be in, we are in pretending to be out!
We can go straight to FTA, more time for both sides to prepare, backstop not an issue if FTA is agreed, and plenty of time for a rethink/GE/leadership contest/#peoplesvote etc.
The uncertainty would be undesireable, but better than no Deal. I reckon it is a decent option and the EU would go for it.
Tipped by me for a Dec 2020 departure at 28 last night, but getting shorter.
Just back from a Valentine day’s meal out and I see that the utterly pathetic meaningless gesturism is still persisting in Westminster. When are these spoiled brats going to grow up?
Does she have any citizenship other than British?*
It matter because we are signatories to two treaties (1954 and 1961), that impose serious restrictions on our ability to remove citizenship from people who have no other citizenship. If another country were to chuck her on a plane to the UK, we would have very little choice other than to accept her.**
Fortunately, it seems like she is likely guilty of a litany of crimes, so we can probably lean on Turkey, Syria and the like to prosecute her, and so the situation will hopefully resolve itself without us having to do anything.
* I said at the time we should recognise IS as a state, as it would save us a ton of problems later.
** We could always withdraw or abrogate these treaties. There are no exit clauses on these, so in theory that's impossible. But the reality is that we could leave them unilaterally, as with the backstop, at any time we chose.
Yes, we should lean on Turkey to prosecute her.
On the treaties against statelessness, they aren't fit for the modern era. They don't take into account stateless operators like IS, we should be able revoke citizenship I'm cases where there is incontrovertible proof that a person has declared themselves allied to a hostile entity, nation or not.
With all due respect, the treaties against statelessness came into existence for exactly this reason. At the end of the Second World War, countries (unsurprisingly) sripped citizenship from those who fought against them. If you were French and fought for the Germans, then the French government stripped you of citizenship.
It became very clear that this was causing a big problem. And there were millions people, mostly in the middle of Europe, who lacked citizenship, and no country wanted to take them. The consequence is that it is almost impossible for countries to make people citizenless.
Even your suggestion of paying the Syrians doesn't really work though: because that is essentially admitting they are British (otherwise we wouldn't be paying), but asking someone else to take them beyond the rule of law.
The only long-term workable answer to this is to have a robust set of treason laws, that can be used to imprison those who fought against us, but are still - in the eyes of the world - British citizens.
Not a wholly convincing article. The Irish issue would certainly be very live but Scotland much less so. It depends how bad it gets but would the Scots want a hard border with England? As for Wales, views on Brexit don't differ much to those in England.
As for England I don't see why Labour couldn't be the largest party if it got its act together. There's nothing very right wing about England.
Indeed, weren't there net Labour gains in England in both 2015 and 2017?
Agreed. I have had more than a few epiphanies these last months, as one MP after another (on all sides or the argument) has been revealed as a total, dribbling cretin. Same goes for lots pf pundits and "experts" - again, on both sides - who've turned out to be wholly clueless. But the MPs are the worst. My daughter's new hamster would do better in government than this caravan of imbeciles, charlatans and cowards.
Deary me.
In fairness we're not seeing individual MPs constantly changing their minds, apart from the "for two pins I'd resign from my party/Cabinet" types. Pretty much everyone else is quite consistent, to the point of stubbornness.
But I wonder why we think the EU would agree to a lengthy delay in A50. What reason have they to think that we will do more than continue to go round in circles? There's a German saying, "Besser ein schreckliches Ende als ein Schreck ohne Ende" (better a horrible end than an endless horror).
Look at it the other way though: What harm is the UK doing Germany by going round in endless circles? It's not like anyone except the British are wasting time on negotiations at this point - it's basically TMay having a meeting with the Commssion once every fortnight where she demands that they reopen her deal and they tell her to piss off. Meanwhile the UK will still presumably be paying its (net positive) bills, and everybody's ignoring it in decision-making so it's not doing any damage there.
I mean, a tidy resolution would be better, but No Deal would be really bad for everyone, so given a crunch situation where the UK has failed to pass the deal and asked for a last-minute extension, wouldn't you rather they just keep driving around the roundabout instead of crashing their car into you?
Yes, I see what you mean. Probably the national governments aren't that bothered. My reading of the Eurocrats, though, is that they want the matter brought to a conclusion as soon as possible without some cataclysmic disaster.
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
Well, in those days it was all about personality. Once you drilled down, there wasn't much difference in policy - both were hawks, both were statist, both were viciously tribal and both believed fiercely in their own superhuman brilliance, boh were fundamentally uninterested in the poor ahead of the electorate. The question therefore became whether to support a third rate snake oil salesman with an extraordinary genius for gathering votes or a violent narcissistic bully with a big brain and a still bigger ego.
And as a result, there was always a feeling matters could be smoothed over when they moved on. But at the moment both parties are brutally riven on policy. Leaving aside Macdonnell, who is scum, the others are just quite grey. Meanwhile, on the key policy issues of which Brexit is only the most visible the policy gulfs have become veritable chasms. There is nothing to suggest therefore that their departure would ease matters.
Do you vote for any of the political parties ?
Despite myself, I can’t help but like John McDonnell. He always comes across well and seems pragmatic. He probably isn’t - but he is very convincing.
I prefer Corbyn to McDonnell. There's a harder edge to McDonnell, and he lacks even Corbyn's presentation of consistent principle (even if one disagrees with his principles).
McDonnell comes across as Met detective from the 1970's, at about the time when the Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark, said of the Met that a good police force catches more criminals than it employes.
In short, superficially charming and plausible but utterly untrustworthy and more than willing to condone the use of violence to get what he wants.
He’s filth.
Filth and scum used this evening. Certainly gets the visceral juices flowing.
With all due respect, the treaties against statelessness came into existence for exactly this reason. At the end of the Second World War, countries (unsurprisingly) sripped citizenship from those who fought against them. If you were French and fought for the Germans, then the French government stripped you of citizenship.
It became very clear that this was causing a big problem. And there were millions people, mostly in the middle of Europe, who lacked citizenship, and no country wanted to take them.
Turn it around for a second. The consequence is that it is almost impossible for countries to make people citizenless.
Even your suggestion of paying the Syrians doesn't really work though: because that is essentially admitting they are British (otherwise we wouldn't be paying), but asking someone else to take them beyond the rule of law.
The only long-term workable answer to this is to have a robust set of treason laws, that can be used to imprison those who fought against us, but are still - in the eyes of the world - British citizens.
Yep I agree with this. Just because our opponents behave in an uncivilized and barbaric manner does not mean we should stoop to their level. We have laws and procedures in place covering this eventuality and whilst I would agree it is up to other countries to decide whether or not they prosecute this woman according to their laws, this is not an excuse for us to abrogate our responsibilities As a country. The woman should be brought home and prosecuted like any other accused person.
With all due respect, the treaties against statelessness came into existence for exactly this reason. At the end of the Second World War, countries (unsurprisingly) sripped citizenship from those who fought against them. If you were French and fought for the Germans, then the French government stripped you of citizenship.
It became very clear that this was causing a big problem. And there were millions people, mostly in the middle of Europe, who lacked citizenship, and no country wanted to take them.
Turn it around for a second. The consequence is that it is almost impossible for countries to make people citizenless.
Even your suggestion of paying the Syrians doesn't really work though: because that is essentially admitting they are British (otherwise we wouldn't be paying), but asking someone else to take them beyond the rule of law.
The only long-term workable answer to this is to have a robust set of treason laws, that can be used to imprison those who fought against us, but are still - in the eyes of the world - British citizens.
Yep I agree with this. Just because our opponents behave in an uncivilized and barbaric manner does not mean we should stoop to their level. We have laws and procedures in place covering this eventuality and whilst I would agree it is up to other countries to decide whether or not they prosecute this woman according to their laws, this is not an excuse for us to abrogate our responsibilities As a country. The woman should be brought home and prosecuted like any other accused person.
It would be practically impossible to prosecute her for any crimes committed in Syria or Iraq here because of the difficulty of getting evidence to the required standard and getting witnesses here to give evidence. If she has committed serious crimes in those countries then those countries are the right places for her to be prosecuted. We should not be whisking away British citizens so that they avoid prosecution by overseas authorities and any effective prosecution here because of the lack of evidence.
If she ends up here by all means take action here. But no-one should be able to go abroad, commit crimes and then escape justice by saying, ooh I'm a British citizen and I'll go home and there's nothing you can do.
Of course she may not have committed crimes in Iraq but how can anyone know. From what I have read IS women played a more active part in maintaining order by some fairly brutal means (if not actual fighting) and weren't simply cooking dinner and having babies.
The idea of Trump actually declaring the national emergency is hilarious.
Congress can immediatly pass a vote ending it. Then the Senate has to vote on ending it 18 days later (15 days of Comittee then 3 days to vote) no filibuster allowed. Straight up and down.
That tweet is from 6 years ago. I hope the total knob responsible for the tw@tter account at the time has long since been departed, however knowing the civil service they are now probably on the Brexit negotiating team....;-)
It would be practically impossible to prosecute her for any crimes committed in Syria or Iraq here because of the difficulty of getting evidence to the required standard and getting witnesses here to give evidence. If she has committed serious crimes in those countries then those countries are the right places for her to be prosecuted. We should not be whisking away British citizens so that they avoid prosecution by overseas authorities and any effective prosecution here because of the lack of evidence.
If she ends up here by all means take action here. But no-one should be able to go abroad, commit crimes and then escape justice by saying, ooh I'm a British citizen and I'll go home and there's nothing you can do.
Of course she may not have committed crimes in Iraq but how can anyone know. From what I have read IS women played a more active part in maintaining order by some fairly brutal means (if not actual fighting) and weren't simply cooking dinner and having babies.
There are laws here to do with membership of a terrorist organisation. She could certainly be prosecuted for that.
I am not suggesting we should do anything to circumvent the laws of these other countries. That should be allowed to take its course. But once that is done we should seek her extradition or bring her home if she surrenders to our officials. We certainly should not bar her from coming back and facing justice.
Agreed. I have had more than a few epiphanies these last months, as one MP after another (on all sides or the argument) has been revealed as a total, dribbling cretin. Same goes for lots pf pundits and "experts" - again, on both sides - who've turned out to be wholly clueless. But the MPs are the worst. My daughter's new hamster would do better in government than this caravan of imbeciles, charlatans and cowards.
Deary me.
In fairness we're not seeing individual MPs constantly changing their minds, apart from the "for two pins I'd resign from my party/Cabinet" types. Pretty much everyone else is quite consistent, to the point of stubbornness.
But I wonder why we think the EU would agree to a lengthy delay in A50. What reason have they to think that we will do more than continue to go round in circles? There's a German saying, "Besser ein schreckliches Ende als ein Schreck ohne Ende" (better a horrible end than an endless horror).
Look at it the other way though: What harm is the UK doing Germany by going round in endless circles? It's not like anyone except the British are wasting time on negotiations at this point - it's basically TMay having a meeting with the Commssion once every fortnight where she demands that they reopen her deal and they tell her to piss off. Meanwhile the UK will still presumably be paying its (net positive) bills, and everybody's ignoring it in decision-making so it's not doing any damage there.
I mean, a tidy resolution would be better, but No Deal would be really bad for everyone, so given a crunch situation where the UK has failed to pass the deal and asked for a last-minute extension, wouldn't you rather they just keep driving around the roundabout instead of crashing their car into you?
Yes, I see what you mean. Probably the national governments aren't that bothered. My reading of the Eurocrats, though, is that they want the matter brought to a conclusion as soon as possible without some cataclysmic disaster.
That sounds plausible. But: 1) It's up to the 27, not the Eurocrats 2) I don't think anyone's really confident they know how cataclysmic No Deal would be
The idea of Trump actually declaring the national emergency is hilarious.
Congress can immediatly pass a vote ending it. Then the Senate has to vote on ending it 18 days later (15 days of Comittee then 3 days to vote) no filibuster allowed. Straight up and down.
I didn't know that - but would a republican senate actually end it, given the support for the wall amongst republicans is 87%
How come, in that light, joining ISIS isn't a treacherous act, in the eyes of the law? If it isn't, then the law is an ass, and should be amended.
Guantanamo Bay has got plenty of free space at the moment. Perhaps we could convince the American's that they could gain some good intel from these people and don't be in a rush about getting it.
Indeed. Joining ISIS is clearly a treasonable act: because it means joining a brutal, sadistic, dedicated terror group which wants to kill British people simply for being British, and has in fact done so many times.
ISIS is, or was, arguably a more ferocious enemy than the Nazis (e.g. we could possibly have negotiated a peace with Hitler in 1940, but we can never negotiate with ISIS, as the very basis of their beliefs, their raison d'etre, is that we must die as kaffirs)
How come, in that light, joining ISIS isn't a treacherous act, in the eyes of the law? If it isn't, then the law is an ass, and should be amended.
Looking at current treason laws I think it is entirely possible that there could be prosecutions under these laws. I don't know of course but I do wonder if they are not doing so because of the connotations associated with the word
Does she have any citizenship other than British?*
It matter because we are signatories to two treaties (1954 and 1961), that impose serious restrictions on our ability to remove citizenship from people who have no other citizenship. If another country were to chuck her on a plane to the UK, we would have very little choice other than to accept her.**
Fortunately, it seems like she is likely guilty of a litany of crimes, so we can probably lean on Turkey, Syria and the like to prosecute her, and so the situation will hopefully resolve itself without us having to do anything.
* I said at the time we should recognise IS as a state, as it would save us a ton of problems later.
** We could always withdraw or abrogate these treaties. There are no exit clauses on these, so in theory that's impossible. But the reality is that we could leave them unilaterally, as with the backstop, at any time we chose.
Yes, we should lean on Turkey to prosecute her.
On the treaties against statelessness, they aren't fit for the modern era. They don't take into account stateless operators like IS, we should be able revoke citizenship I'm cases where there is incontrovertible proof that a person has declared themselves allied to a hostile entity, nation or not.
It became very clear that this was causing a big problem. And there were millions people, mostly in the middle of Europe, who lacked citizenship, and no country wanted to take them. The consequence is that it is almost impossible for countries to make people citizenless.
Even your suggestion of paying the Syrians doesn't really work though: because that is essentially admitting they are British (otherwise we wouldn't be paying), but asking someone else to take them beyond the rule of law.
The only long-term workable answer to this is to have a robust set of treason laws, that can be used to imprison those who fought against us, but are still - in the eyes of the world - British citizens.
Indeed. Joining ISIS is clearly a treasonable act: because it means joining a brutal, sadistic, dedicated terror group which wants to kill British people simply for being British, and has in fact done so many times.
ISIS is, or was, arguably a more ferocious enemy than the Nazis (e.g. we could possibly have negotiated a peace with Hitler in 1940, but we can never negotiate with ISIS, as the very basis of their beliefs, their raison d'etre, is that we must die as kaffirs)
How come, in that light, joining ISIS isn't a treacherous act, in the eyes of the law? If it isn't, then the law is an ass, and should be amended.
I think it's an offence under the Terrorism Act 2006.
The idea of Trump actually declaring the national emergency is hilarious.
Congress can immediatly pass a vote ending it. Then the Senate has to vote on ending it 18 days later (15 days of Comittee then 3 days to vote) no filibuster allowed. Straight up and down.
I didn't know that - but would a republican senate actually end it, given the support for the wall amongst republicans is 87%
The Republicans are worried about the precedent it might set. According to the BBC they could see a future Democrat government taking similar action to force through gun controls
How come, in that light, joining ISIS isn't a treacherous act, in the eyes of the law? If it isn't, then the law is an ass, and should be amended.
Guantanamo Bay has got plenty of free space at the moment. Perhaps we could convince the American's that they could gain some good intel from these people and don't be in a rush about getting it.
Telegraph lead article on the website now is that the US have had enough of the UK position and are now saying they can all come to Guantanamo.
How come, in that light, joining ISIS isn't a treacherous act, in the eyes of the law? If it isn't, then the law is an ass, and should be amended.
Guantanamo Bay has got plenty of free space at the moment. Perhaps we could convince the American's that they could gain some good intel from these people and don't be in a rush about getting it.
Telegraph lead article on the website now is that the US have had enough of the UK position and are now saying they can all come to Guantanamo.
In all honesty, the remaining two of the 4 psychos need to go there, or have a "mishap" on the way to the showers.
All those hoping that ISIS fighers and WAGS would be getting charged with some sort of crime...
It has emerged that the vast majority of Islamist fighters returning to the UK from Syria have been placed on “secretive” government rehabilitation schemes rather than be prosecuted. Only 1 in 10 have been prosecuted.
How come, in that light, joining ISIS isn't a treacherous act, in the eyes of the law? If it isn't, then the law is an ass, and should be amended.
Guantanamo Bay has got plenty of free space at the moment. Perhaps we could convince the American's that they could gain some good intel from these people and don't be in a rush about getting it.
Telegraph lead article on the website now is that the US have had enough of the UK position and are now saying they can all come to Guantanamo.
All those hoping that ISIS fighers and WAGS would be getting charged with some sort of crime...
It has emerged that the vast majority of Islamist fighters returning to the UK from Syria have been placed on “secretive” government rehabilitation schemes rather than be prosecuted. Only 1 in 10 have been prosecuted.
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
Well, in those days it was all about personality. Once you drilled down, there wasn't much difference in policy - both were hawks, both were statist, both were viciously tribal and both believed fiercely in their own superhuman brilliance, boh were fundamentally uninterested in the poor ahead of the electorate. The question therefore became whether to support a third rate snake oil salesman with an extraordinary genius for gathering votes or a violent narcissistic bully with a big brain and a still bigger ego.
And as a result, there was always a feeling matters could be smoothed over when they moved on. But at the moment both parties are brutally riven on policy. Leaving aside Macdonnell, who is scum, the others are just quite grey. Meanwhile, on the key policy issues of which Brexit is only the most visible the policy gulfs have become veritable chasms. There is nothing to suggest therefore that their departure would ease matters.
Do you vote for any of the political parties ?
Despite myself, I can’t help but like John McDonnell. He always comes across well and seems pragmatic. He probably isn’t - but he is very convincing.
I prefer Corbyn to McDonnell. There's a harder edge to McDonnell, and he lacks even Corbyn's presentation of consistent principle (even if one disagrees with his principles).
McDonnell comes across as Met detective from the 1970's, at about the time when the Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark, said of the Met that a good police force catches more criminals than it employes.
In short, superficially charming and plausible but utterly untrustworthy and more than willing to condone the use of violence to get what he wants.
I think that’s absolutely spot on. In the first two episodes he comes across well, and we think he’s a principled detective determined only to bring justice to the world. In the later episode wevrealise his principles only extend to the cosy and blinkered circle of values and friends he’s worked in all his life.
All those hoping that ISIS fighers and WAGS would be getting charged with some sort of crime...
It has emerged that the vast majority of Islamist fighters returning to the UK from Syria have been placed on “secretive” government rehabilitation schemes rather than be prosecuted. Only 1 in 10 have been prosecuted.
It's often hard to know the truth about these things: is a rehabilitation centre a nice name for a place where people are essentially incarcerated without trial? Or does it mean people are given new identities and dumped into society? How much does it reflect the difficulty is prosecuting people due to lack of evidence? How many people have essentially swapped information for leniancy?
The Telegraph has a story. But without context, it is just a story.
The idea of Trump actually declaring the national emergency is hilarious.
Congress can immediatly pass a vote ending it. Then the Senate has to vote on ending it 18 days later (15 days of Comittee then 3 days to vote) no filibuster allowed. Straight up and down.
I didn't know that - but would a republican senate actually end it, given the support for the wall amongst republicans is 87%
The Republicans are worried about the precedent it might set. According to the BBC they could see a future Democrat government taking similar action to force through gun controls
Isn't that a bit of a red herring - isn't it harder to amend the constitution then declare/ end a SOE? ( I would have thought Trump would get each senator to declare on the record - at the White House that they would revoke the SOM, before he issues it. The GOP senators would realise they would be deselected when their tenure expires)
As many of you know, the European Parliament has a vote on the Brexit withdrawal agreement. So it might be nice to know what they are thinking. Here is a recent Reddit article by an employee:
Government Minister publicly calls other government MPs traitors and should be expelled. Only in this dysfunctional govt is this a non story. Points to how low we’ve fallen.
Not far off the Blair/Brown days.
I don't remember most of those years super well, but surely it was never this bad. Various remain and leave ultras openly admit to despising one another, people surely at least pretended not to do so.
Well, in those days it was all about personality. Once you drilled down, there wasn't much difference in policy - both were hawks, both were statist, both were viciously tribal and both believed fiercely in their own superhuman brilliance, boh were fundamentally uninterested in the poor ahead of the electorate. The question therefore became whether to support a third rate snake oil salesman with an extraordinary genius for gathering votes or a violent narcissistic bully with a big brain and a still bigger ego.
And as a result, there was always a feeling matters could be smoothed over when they moved on. But at the moment both parties are brutally riven on policy. Leaving aside Macdonnell, who is scum, the others are just quite grey. Meanwhile, on the key policy issues of which Brexit is only the most visible the policy gulfs have become veritable chasms. There is nothing to suggest therefore that their departure would ease matters.
Do you vote for any of the political parties ?
Despite myself, I can’t help but like John McDonnell. He always comes across well and seems pragmatic. He probably isn’t - but he is very convincing.
I prefer Corbyn to McDonnell. There's a harder edge to McDonnell, and he lacks even Corbyn's presentation of consistent principle (even if one disagrees with his principles).
McDonnell comes across as Met detective from the 1970's, at about the time when the Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark, said of the Met that a good police force catches more criminals than it employes.
In short, superficially charming and plausible but utterly untrustworthy and more than willing to condone the use of violence to get what he wants.
He’s filth.
Roses are red McDonnell is redder If you think he is filth Say why in a threader
Comments
And I said Labour voters. Deliberately.
An MP represents the voters, not just the members.
Good night.
To positively renounce British citizenship you have to apply to the Home Secretary who will only grant it if you already have a another citizenship or need to renounce British citizenship to acquire another one, and in that case if you don't acquire that other citizenship within a set time, the renunciation lapses. Since 2002 British citizens can be deprived of their citizenship by the Home Secretary for doing very naughty terroristic things, but only if they won't be made stateless by doing so. Naturalized citizens can be deprived of their British citizenship if they obtained it through fraud or false statements etc, even if they will be made stateless as a result.
He's also a 'Remain and Reform' advocate so that would make our EU position easier to sell to the membership.
He certainly comes across very well.Always very smart in interviews .
In my opinion he is more hungry for power than Corbyn and that is why he is pragmatic.
As he sees the current situation as a once in a generation chance of real change.
2525 Chuka
Was still alive
Hadn't quit yet
In the year 3535...
As for England I don't see why Labour couldn't be the largest party if it got its act together. There's nothing very right wing about England.
In short, superficially charming and plausible but utterly untrustworthy and more than willing to condone the use of violence to get what he wants.
In 2005 Iraq was in the past.
The troubles Iraq created, the very difficult decisions and visceral disagreements still continued.
We can go straight to FTA, more time for both sides to prepare, backstop not an issue if FTA is agreed, and plenty of time for a rethink/GE/leadership contest/#peoplesvote etc.
The uncertainty would be undesireable, but better than no Deal. I reckon it is a decent option and the EU would go for it.
Tipped by me for a Dec 2020 departure at 28 last night, but getting shorter.
10/1 By 29/3
1/9 Never
(Apologies if odds don't add up right).
It became very clear that this was causing a big problem. And there were millions people, mostly in the middle of Europe, who lacked citizenship, and no country wanted to take them. The consequence is that it is almost impossible for countries to make people citizenless.
Even your suggestion of paying the Syrians doesn't really work though: because that is essentially admitting they are British (otherwise we wouldn't be paying), but asking someone else to take them beyond the rule of law.
The only long-term workable answer to this is to have a robust set of treason laws, that can be used to imprison those who fought against us, but are still - in the eyes of the world - British citizens.
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/302095617092632576?s=21
Certainly gets the visceral juices flowing.
Even I don't like that, and I'm an immigration hawk.
British politics since the GE redux then.
It would be practically impossible to prosecute her for any crimes committed in Syria or Iraq here because of the difficulty of getting evidence to the required standard and getting witnesses here to give evidence. If she has committed serious crimes in those countries then those countries are the right places for her to be prosecuted. We should not be whisking away British citizens so that they avoid prosecution by overseas authorities and any effective prosecution here because of the lack of evidence.
If she ends up here by all means take action here. But no-one should be able to go abroad, commit crimes and then escape justice by saying, ooh I'm a British citizen and I'll go home and there's nothing you can do.
Of course she may not have committed crimes in Iraq but how can anyone know. From what I have read IS women played a more active part in maintaining order by some fairly brutal means (if not actual fighting) and weren't simply cooking dinner and having babies.
If politicians don't get their shit together,
Its boxed wine for all of you.
It is also dated 6 years ago ...
"Nothing has changed" to coin a phrase??
Congress can immediatly pass a vote ending it. Then the Senate has to vote on ending it 18 days later (15 days of Comittee then 3 days to vote) no filibuster allowed. Straight up and down.
I am not suggesting we should do anything to circumvent the laws of these other countries. That should be allowed to take its course. But once that is done we should seek her extradition or bring her home if she surrenders to our officials. We certainly should not bar her from coming back and facing justice.
1) It's up to the 27, not the Eurocrats
2) I don't think anyone's really confident they know how cataclysmic No Deal would be
The tweet I mean, not your response.
https://twitter.com/gregoceallaigh/status/1095831333052600320
Violets are blue,
If you joined ISIS,
It's prison for you...
It has emerged that the vast majority of Islamist fighters returning to the UK from Syria have been placed on “secretive” government rehabilitation schemes rather than be prosecuted. Only 1 in 10 have been prosecuted.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/14/us-plans-jail-british-jihadis-guantanamo-getting-fed-up-uks/
The Telegraph has a story. But without context, it is just a story.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/aknnsw/im_a_parliamentary_assistant_in_the_european/
McDonnell is redder
If you think he is filth
Say why in a threader