What's mildly irritating about the current stushie (with plenty of arseholism on all sides) is the construction that Churchill's flaws (racism, Imperialism, anti semitism, eugenicism, white supremacism, anti trade unionism) all have to be seen in the context of their/his times, while heroic Churchill is an hero for all the ages, especially this one. Both can't be right.
Is he? I think he's only being recognised for being a hero when he was. I haven't seen many sane people wishing he was in charge now and managing the current negotiations or bringing down the deficit (not least as it seems to me his subsequent spell in government dealing with business-as-usual wasn't deemed an untrammelled success).
But both sides bore me a bit. FFS, *all* leaders have highs and lows. His highs were probably higher than most, and they've pushed the significant lows out of the spotlight somewhat. And I'm not sure we need to come up with a single score out of ten (or "hero or villain") for every leader which combines the two.
Winny seems pretty current in our foreign sec's consciousness. Welcome to hyperbolic denial central.
Their internal rules appear to be able to be ‘flexible’ when it suits them, even if they appear fixed to an outsider. Note the passport checks in between Schengen countries over the last few years, to curb illegal immigration.
It does seem like the EU are giving Ireland the choice to either put up a ‘proper’ border with the U.K. or have one imposed on them in Calais and Rotterdam. I wonder when Varadkar realises they’ve been using him all along?
They appear fixed to an outsider who doesn't know what it says in the treaty. If you know what it says in the treaty, you know that it allows for border controls to be reintroduced, as long as it's temporary and proportional to the threat they're supposed to address.
I have no idea what it says in whatever treaties control customs, but I'd be a bit surprised if they wrote them to say that if one of the member states decides not to police it's external border, the other member states just have to suck it up.
On topic this all comes down to the Tory remainers now doesn't it? It's one thing saying that there are 50 Tory MPs who won't permit no deal but it looks like threats won't be enough, when will they strike? Passing Cooper 2 on Feb 27th would do the trick, which sounds more plausible than mass resignation of the whip. I'll wait to see more credible Labour figures than Caroline Flint come out against before I worry about a big Labour rebellion.
I still think that we get an extension because the day ends in a y and we've not had a recent AV thread. If we ask for extension and are declined, no way we can get anything else through, so it's directly the EUs fault it's a no deal. Huge patriotic backlash against Brussels in that case.
It does sound like the EU are actually contemplating a hard border between RoI and the rest of the EU in the event of no deal, basically kicking Ireland out of the CU as the best option to ensure U.K. goods don’t get into the mainland EU without checks and tariffs.
It’s slowly dawning on them that there’s no way Varadkar can put up a border across Ireland, nor can the EU enforce a border between GB and NI against the will of the U.K.
We all agreed this idea was bonkers when it first surfaced a few weeks ago, but it’s now the only sensible option the EU have left in the event of no deal.
How would that be legal?
I don’t see how it could be, as anything other than a temporary measure.
The EU logic would be that the RoI’s “refusal” to implement a hard border with a non-EU State means that one must be implemented around the RoI too. It’s their thank-you card to Varadkar for his help in the Brexit negotiations.
Surely what the EU can do is governed by treaty, though. They can't just make it up as they go along.
Their internal rules appear to be able to be ‘flexible’ when it suits them, even if they appear fixed to an outsider. Note the passport checks in between Schengen countries over the last few years, to curb illegal immigration.
It does seem like the EU are giving Ireland the choice to either put up a ‘proper’ border with the U.K. or have one imposed on them in Calais and Rotterdam. I wonder when Varadkar realises they’ve been using him all along?
The question is, could the EU do that legally?
Is your answer yes? Or is your answer no, but you think the EU would do it illegally? Or is your answer that you don't know?
No but it would do it illegally. And would find some after the fact justification to excuse it.
Do you mean the EU would claim it was acting legally? Or that it would acknowledge it was acting illegally but do it anyway?
They would claim they were acting legally, just as they have done whenever it suited themselves to do (again examples being borders within Schengen, bailout of Greece, etc, etc)
Thanks for clarifying your view. The EU would act illegally, but would claim they were acting legally.
Precisely. They change what is legal when it suits themselves to do so.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
It was Theresa May who made it a negotiating point.
On topic this all comes down to the Tory remainers now doesn't it? It's one thing saying that there are 50 Tory MPs who won't permit no deal but it looks like threats won't be enough, when will they strike? Passing Cooper 2 on Feb 27th would do the trick, which sounds more plausible than mass resignation of the whip. I'll wait to see more credible Labour figures than Caroline Flint come out against before I worry about a big Labour rebellion.
I still think that we get an extension because the day ends in a y and we've not had a recent AV thread. If we ask for extension and are declined, no way we can get anything else through, so it's directly the EUs fault it's a no deal. Huge patriotic backlash against Brussels in that case.
An extension doesn't prevent no deal, it just changes the date on which no deal occurs.
The only things that change no deal is a deal being ratified or revocation.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
It was Theresa May who made it a negotiating point.
That's not true. It was the EU that put it into their "Phase One".
I am hearing strong rumours that Theresa May has just bought a property in Southern Snowdonia.
It made me wonder if she is now thinking of life after Brexit.
I think, one way or another, she will get her deal through, and then resign (or perhaps even her resignation will be part of the price of the deal).
Well, she's committed to standing down before the next election, which realistically means summer 2021 at the latest, so whatever happens (if she sticks to that pledge), it's not something for the distant future.
FWIW, I think this summer still makes sense for a leadership election, if this round of Brexit is sorted by then - although not if there's an extension into the autumn or beyond, or if there's a No Deal situation to be managed.
Aren't house prices dropping, with a further plunge on No Deal?
She should have waited...
She’ll have space to have a small-holding and shotgun licences are generally easier to get in the country.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
It was Theresa May who made it a negotiating point.
That's not true. It was the EU that put it into their "Phase One".
I am officially a citizen of nowhere. Hotpots are Northumberland and Scottish borders (grew up in Fife and Newcastle so that is reasonable), a broad swathe around Lincolnshire, North Norfolk and Peterborough but extending towards Leicester (spent three years at university not far away but can't believe I picked up much of a fenland dialect - perhaps it's picking up the East Midlands influence from my wife) and somewhere on the M4 or M3 corridor, where I have no connection at all. Not a surprise since nobody can figure out where I am from and I don't really know myself.
East Midlands has its own accent beginning somewhere between King's Lynn and Long Sutton and extending west and north from there ending goodness knows where. No-one notices it because it's part of the country that isn't known. Don't share this information because this magnificent area is the best kept secret of all.
Yes it feels like one of the most anonymous parts of the country for most of us. As you know, the Honey Pot Lane Industrial Estate is one of my favourite spots on earth, but I've never lingered long enough to pick up the lingo. I suspect it is having a wife from Derby that has located me there, or perhaps the Scottish element to my vocabulary has placed me in Corby?
Surely with that moniker you’re from New Cross?
SE14 resident but only for the last 8 years so probably not long enough to pick up a Sarf East London accent, especially as I live in the posh bit.
On topic this all comes down to the Tory remainers now doesn't it? It's one thing saying that there are 50 Tory MPs who won't permit no deal but it looks like threats won't be enough, when will they strike? Passing Cooper 2 on Feb 27th would do the trick, which sounds more plausible than mass resignation of the whip. I'll wait to see more credible Labour figures than Caroline Flint come out against before I worry about a big Labour rebellion.
I still think that we get an extension because the day ends in a y and we've not had a recent AV thread. If we ask for extension and are declined, no way we can get anything else through, so it's directly the EUs fault it's a no deal. Huge patriotic backlash against Brussels in that case.
An extension doesn't prevent no deal, it just changes the date on which no deal occurs.
The only things that change no deal is a deal being ratified or revocation.
I thought my years travelling with the army as a kid might throw it off. I got most of the east of Scotland but Dundee was in the darkest bit. Quite impressed.
Finally managed to get through to the final map at third attempt. It gives me a swathe of the southern Home Counties but not London, which is interesting as my family are all from London but I was brought up in Kent.
Their internal rules appear to be able to be ‘flexible’ when it suits them, even if they appear fixed to an outsider. Note the passport checks in between Schengen countries over the last few years, to curb illegal immigration.
It does seem like the EU are giving Ireland the choice to either put up a ‘proper’ border with the U.K. or have one imposed on them in Calais and Rotterdam. I wonder when Varadkar realises they’ve been using him all along?
They appear fixed to an outsider who doesn't know what it says in the treaty. If you know what it says in the treaty, you know that it allows for border controls to be reintroduced, as long as it's temporary and proportional to the threat they're supposed to address.
I have no idea what it says in whatever treaties control customs, but I'd be a bit surprised if they wrote them to say that if one of the member states decides not to police it's external border, the other member states just have to suck it up.
As it's such an important issue, it would be useful to know what the legal position is.
Not bad - it picks a blob covering where I was born, and where my dad is from.
Likewise, I'm from the east end of london as is my mum's side of the family (barking & walthamstow) and it picks "southend" but highlights mainly eastern london & essex and it picked "portsmouth" - my dad is from bournemouth area which is in dark red highlight.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
It was Theresa May who made it a negotiating point.
That's not true. It was the EU that put it into their "Phase One".
Read the Lancaster House speech.
The only reference to the Republic of Ireland I can find in the Lancaster House speech was about maintaining the Common Travel Area, while protecting the integrity of the UK's immigration system.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
It does sound like the EU are actually contemplating a hard border between RoI and the rest of the EU in the event of no deal, basically kicking Ireland out of the CU as the best option to ensure U.K. goods don’t get into the mainland EU without checks and tariffs.
It’s slowly dawning on them that there’s no way Varadkar can put up a border across Ireland, nor can the EU enforce a border between GB and NI against the will of the U.K.
We all agreed this idea was bonkers when it first surfaced a few weeks ago, but it’s now the only sensible option the EU have left in the event of no deal.
Nothing will happen. Nothing will be done. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. And endless empty threats. And lots of interviews - much sound and fury signifying nothing.
Leadsom will continue talking nonsense. May will repeat the same pre-programmed statement she’s been boring us rigid with for months and months.
And the Militant Tendency of the Tory party - the ERG - will get their desire. I hope it turns to ashes in their mouths.
The rest of us will just have to cope with what happens. And some of us will wait quietly until the time comes to take our revenge.
Thus spake Cassandra.
Given Cassandra (the prophetess, not the one who married Rodney) was right, that's probably not the example you wished to use...
This Churchill stuff. Shades of grey - but the retards of Twitter can’t do that because it involves subtly, thought and honesty. I return to my view that social media will kill liberal democracy.
That's a SouthamObserver talking point just a few days late!
I suspect there's a significant overlap in the Venn diagram of "Voters who could be swayed by JM's comments on Churchill" and "Voters who've long since gone because Palestinians and IRA and antisemitism and whatever the Express is on about today".
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
A stronger argument against this point is that Ireland insisted it was handled as an EU-wide negotiation. Saying it should have been done bilaterally is the same as David Davis saying we should have negotiated tariff-free trade bilaterally with Berlin.
On topic this all comes down to the Tory remainers now doesn't it? It's one thing saying that there are 50 Tory MPs who won't permit no deal but it looks like threats won't be enough, when will they strike? Passing Cooper 2 on Feb 27th would do the trick, which sounds more plausible than mass resignation of the whip. I'll wait to see more credible Labour figures than Caroline Flint come out against before I worry about a big Labour rebellion.
I still think that we get an extension because the day ends in a y and we've not had a recent AV thread. If we ask for extension and are declined, no way we can get anything else through, so it's directly the EUs fault it's a no deal. Huge patriotic backlash against Brussels in that case.
I didn't know "patriotic" meant "arsed around for two years, couldn't even agree with ourselves, then asked for an extension at the very last minute and screamed when denied".
This Churchill stuff. Shades of grey - but the retards of Twitter can’t do that because it involves subtly, thought and honesty. I return to my view that social media will kill liberal democracy.
There’s a ironic joke somewhere that the guy who the hard left are calling evil this week, is the guy who stopped those who were killing millions of Jews - which they were all in favour of last week, when they weren’t saying that the Jew-killing didn’t happen.
This Churchill stuff. Shades of grey - but the retards of Twitter can’t do that because it involves subtly, thought and honesty. I return to my view that social media will kill liberal democracy.
I agree with you entirely about the shades of grey. I think he undoubtedly did things for this country that would rightly elevate him to revered status. But he also did things that were petty, petulant and are still damaging the country even today . The Irish border and his part in the negotiations of the 1921 Treaty are a very pertinent case in point.
A different set of restaurateurs now backing a ‘people’s vote’ - after having supported leave:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/15/brexit-lies-curry-vote-leave-restaurant-industry At the time, the Bangladesh Caterers Association was worried about an average of four restaurants closing a week, rising rents and soaring business rates. Both Priti Patel and Boris Johnson approached us to collaborate with and support the Save Our Curry Houses campaign set up by Vote Leave. They said if we were to support the leave campaign, they would ensure we were able to get more chefs from south Asia by relaxing immigration rules with lower salary thresholds to hire staff from outside the EU.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
It was Theresa May who made it a negotiating point.
No it wasn’t.
I know you’re a fanboy but it was the EU who insisted from the beginning a solution to the border be included in the WA
What's mildly irritating about the current stushie (with plenty of arseholism on all sides) is the construction that Churchill's flaws (racism, Imperialism, anti semitism, eugenicism, white supremacism, anti trade unionism) all have to be seen in the context of their/his times, while heroic Churchill is an hero for all the ages, especially this one. Both can't be right.
Is he? I think he's only being recognised for being a hero when he was. I haven't seen many sane people wishing he was in charge now and managing the current negotiations or bringing down the deficit (not least as it seems to me his subsequent spell in government dealing with business-as-usual wasn't deemed an untrammelled success).
But both sides bore me a bit. FFS, *all* leaders have highs and lows. His highs were probably higher than most, and they've pushed the significant lows out of the spotlight somewhat. And I'm not sure we need to come up with a single score out of ten (or "hero or villain") for every leader which combines the two.
Winny seems pretty current in our foreign sec's consciousness. Welcome to hyperbolic denial central.
Nothing will happen. Nothing will be done. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. And endless empty threats. And lots of interviews - much sound and fury signifying nothing.
Leadsom will continue talking nonsense. May will repeat the same pre-programmed statement she’s been boring us rigid with for months and months.
And the Militant Tendency of the Tory party - the ERG - will get their desire. I hope it turns to ashes in their mouths.
The rest of us will just have to cope with what happens. And some of us will wait quietly until the time comes to take our revenge.
Thus spake Cassandra.
Given Cassandra (the prophetess, not the one who married Rodney) was right, that's probably not the example you wished to use...
She predicted 10 of the last 2 recessions though. Or was that Vince Cable?*
What's mildly irritating about the current stushie (with plenty of arseholism on all sides) is the construction that Churchill's flaws (racism, Imperialism, anti semitism, eugenicism, white supremacism, anti trade unionism) all have to be seen in the context of their/his times, while heroic Churchill is an hero for all the ages, especially this one. Both can't be right.
Is he? I think he's only being recognised for being a hero when he was. I haven't seen many sane people wishing he was in charge now and managing the current negotiations or bringing down the deficit (not least as it seems to me his subsequent spell in government dealing with business-as-usual wasn't deemed an untrammelled success).
But both sides bore me a bit. FFS, *all* leaders have highs and lows. His highs were probably higher than most, and they've pushed the significant lows out of the spotlight somewhat. And I'm not sure we need to come up with a single score out of ten (or "hero or villain") for every leader which combines the two.
Winny seems pretty current in our foreign sec's consciousness. Welcome to hyperbolic denial central.
On topic this all comes down to the Tory remainers now doesn't it? It's one thing saying that there are 50 Tory MPs who won't permit no deal but it looks like threats won't be enough, when will they strike? Passing Cooper 2 on Feb 27th would do the trick, which sounds more plausible than mass resignation of the whip. I'll wait to see more credible Labour figures than Caroline Flint come out against before I worry about a big Labour rebellion.
I still think that we get an extension because the day ends in a y and we've not had a recent AV thread. If we ask for extension and are declined, no way we can get anything else through, so it's directly the EUs fault it's a no deal. Huge patriotic backlash against Brussels in that case.
An extension doesn't prevent no deal, it just changes the date on which no deal occurs.
The only things that change no deal is a deal being ratified or revocation.
Maybe technically true, but politically naive.
Yes I agree. No-one outside the ERG are claiming any benefits of Brexit now; it's just the inevitability through the referendum or the ticking clock. Once we delay, I think the lie of the land changes more than we might aniticipate.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
It was Theresa May who made it a negotiating point.
No it wasn’t.
I know you’re a fanboy but it was the EU who insisted from the beginning a solution to the border be included in the WA
It was Theresa May who set red lines that made it necessary to negotiate over Northern Ireland. If she'd admitted that the solution for Northern Ireland would be need to be unique then it could have been handled differently. Your point boils down to an objection that Ireland was able to marshal its allies in the EU to protect its interests.
Their internal rules appear to be able to be ‘flexible’ when it suits them, even if they appear fixed to an outsider. Note the passport checks in between Schengen countries over the last few years, to curb illegal immigration.
It does seem like the EU are giving Ireland the choice to either put up a ‘proper’ border with the U.K. or have one imposed on them in Calais and Rotterdam. I wonder when Varadkar realises they’ve been using him all along?
They appear fixed to an outsider who doesn't know what it says in the treaty. If you know what it says in the treaty, you know that it allows for border controls to be reintroduced, as long as it's temporary and proportional to the threat they're supposed to address.
I have no idea what it says in whatever treaties control customs, but I'd be a bit surprised if they wrote them to say that if one of the member states decides not to police it's external border, the other member states just have to suck it up.
As it's such an important issue, it would be useful to know what the legal position is.
The legal position is whatever the political ECJ decides it is. There’s a long history of retrospective decisions on such matters to suit the politicians in charge.
The actual CU dates from the Treaty of Rome, so a full understanding of the CU would involve reading and interpreting every single EU Treaty since then.
It's funny how people are talking about Churchill just at a time when we've got plenty of other more important things to discuss. (Not on PB, in general).
I do wonder if those castigating Churchill for the Bengal Famine - ignoring the fact that this was a decision by a coalition government of both Tory and Labour Ministers - will be equally quick to take to Twitter to castigate Attlee for the Labour government's decisions in relation to Indian independence which led to at least a million deaths.
And say that it is time to stop airbrushing the real history of the Labour government 1945-51?
"Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.” As the resistance swelled, he announced: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits”. At other times, he said the plague was “merrily” culling the population."
Maybe it is just that because he is lionised we talk about him more; maybe the history surrounding him and this issue is better preserved. If I saw evidence Attlee held these views, I'd be happy to call him a villain too.
This Churchill stuff. Shades of grey - but the retards of Twitter can’t do that because it involves subtly, thought and honesty. I return to my view that social media will kill liberal democracy.
You could argue the problem isn't social media itself, it's the people who use it.
I am 52% leave, 48% remain, just like the UK was. The reason is simple. I am very sympathetic to the common market element of the EU and very unsympathetic to the EU as a political project. My best guess is that the majority of the population are still somewhere around there - they like the trading project, and since the referendum like it even more, and don't like the political project of Euro, armies, social intervention, elections, foreign policies, diplomats, parliaments distribution of regional funds etc. Polling over 'Leave' and 'Remain' tells you nothing of any depth because the answer has to be 100% on one side or the other, and that is not where we are.
The way debate goes in our world means that almost no voice is given to the people who say that there is a strong case for both sides. Even PB is not very good at it. But it is true. There is a strong case for both sides. Neither campaign got close to expressing it well.
In the world of likely politics, crashing out is a risk including the risk of breaking up the union and a lot of other difficulties. This may not happen, but politicians don't like risk, nor do most voters when put to the test.
Only TMs deal or a clear steer towards Norway for Now gets us close to squaring the circle. There is no perfect solution because - and this was high order folly - freedom of movement is inextricably linked to both the political project and the trading project.
In my view since FoM for states with a very different economic profile and Mr Cameron's failure to get movement on the FoM issue there cannot be sane outcome until FoM belongs to the political and not the trading project.
Until then, and it must change sometime, TMs deal is the best on offer.
On topic this all comes down to the Tory remainers now doesn't it? It's one thing saying that there are 50 Tory MPs who won't permit no deal but it looks like threats won't be enough, when will they strike? Passing Cooper 2 on Feb 27th would do the trick, which sounds more plausible than mass resignation of the whip. I'll wait to see more credible Labour figures than Caroline Flint come out against before I worry about a big Labour rebellion.
I still think that we get an extension because the day ends in a y and we've not had a recent AV thread. If we ask for extension and are declined, no way we can get anything else through, so it's directly the EUs fault it's a no deal. Huge patriotic backlash against Brussels in that case.
An extension doesn't prevent no deal, it just changes the date on which no deal occurs.
The only things that change no deal is a deal being ratified or revocation.
Maybe technically true, but politically naive.
I'm not sure that's true. The prospect of an extension-but-still-no-deal is real. However I'm beginning to think that the later May leaves it, the less possible an extension becomes. There's a famous theory (hypothesis, whatever) that WW1 started because of railway timetables: once mobilisation started it proceeded just to fit in with the train times. There's a bit of a nightmare scenario where May asks for an extension in the last week but is denied because all the (EU) arrangements for no-deal will be in place. I think I could add the Joker line about "it's all part of the plaaaan" here but it's depressing.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
So at the same time as demanding the UK take back control of its borders, you demanding the EU abandon a section of its border. It seems as though you might be indulging in the vice yourself.
It's funny how people are talking about Churchill just at a time when we've got plenty of other more important things to discuss. (Not on PB, in general).
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
It was Theresa May who made it a negotiating point.
No it wasn’t.
I know you’re a fanboy but it was the EU who insisted from the beginning a solution to the border be included in the WA
It was Theresa May who set red lines that made it necessary to negotiate over Northern Ireland. If she'd admitted that the solution for Northern Ireland would be need to be unique then it could have been handled differently. Your point boils down to an objection that Ireland was able to marshal its allies in the EU to protect its interests.
All May insisted on in Lancaster House is that the CTA be maintained. The CTA of course predates the EU, predates customs agreements and predates the GFA.
This Churchill stuff. Shades of grey - but the retards of Twitter can’t do that because it involves subtly, thought and honesty. I return to my view that social media will kill liberal democracy.
You could argue the problem isn't social media itself, it's the people who use it.
This Churchill stuff. Shades of grey - but the retards of Twitter can’t do that because it involves subtly, thought and honesty. I return to my view that social media will kill liberal democracy.
You could argue the problem isn't social media itself, it's the people who use it.
I don't think it's the average user that is the problem, other than that they might follow some people they would be better off ignoring, it's the way social media gives a megaphone to the sort of idiots who used to be limited to a soap box or a newsletter. The worst people can now reach a global audience easily. The craziest ideas can now spread like wildfire, and generally do so far more easily than the nuanced fact-based opinions of people who know what they are talking about.
My view on WSC, who was a Liberal Unionist rather than a traditional Conservative, is one of unfettered admiration for his time as Prime Minister during WW2. He galvanised and enthused the British people at our greatest time of trial and produced magnificent and commanding oratory to convince and cajole us into believing not only in our survival but in final victory. He was the embodiment of that resistance, that spirit, that belief.
Victory could not however been achieved without the transformation of Britain into a war economy and Churchill was fortunate to have alongside him in the Wartime Coalition men of extraordinary ability such as Attlee, Morrison, Eden and Bevin. I don't think the other members of the War Cabinet get the recognition they deserve.
On foreign as distinct from military matters, Churchill called it right more often than wrong but it was clear he found the notion of the post-war world run in reality from Washington and Moscow difficult. On military matters, his record is poor and generally as a peace-time politician, it's not a wholly positive story but all that is eclipsed by being the man in the right place at the right time when he was needed most.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
It was Theresa May who made it a negotiating point.
No it wasn’t.
I know you’re a fanboy but it was the EU who insisted from the beginning a solution to the border be included in the WA
It was Theresa May who set red lines that made it necessary to negotiate over Northern Ireland. If she'd admitted that the solution for Northern Ireland would be need to be unique then it could have been handled differently. Your point boils down to an objection that Ireland was able to marshal its allies in the EU to protect its interests.
All May insisted on in Lancaster House is that the CTA be maintained. The CTA of course predates the EU, predates customs agreements and predates the GFA.
In other words she glossed over the issue of a customs border that was explicit in the sections about leaving the single market and customs union, and "maintaining the necessary common standards and frameworks for our own domestic market, empowering the UK as an open, trading nation to strike the best trade deals around the world, and protecting the common resources of our islands."
The problem with social media as opposed to sites like this is how they become an echo chamber. People can surround themselves with like minded individuals and block out views they oppose.
Their internal rules appear to be able to be ‘flexible’ when it suits them, even if they appear fixed to an outsider. Note the passport checks in between Schengen countries over the last few years, to curb illegal immigration.
It does seem like the EU are giving Ireland the choice to either put up a ‘proper’ border with the U.K. or have one imposed on them in Calais and Rotterdam. I wonder when Varadkar realises they’ve been using him all along?
They appear fixed to an outsider who doesn't know what it says in the treaty. If you know what it says in the treaty, you know that it allows for border controls to be reintroduced, as long as it's temporary and proportional to the threat they're supposed to address.
I have no idea what it says in whatever treaties control customs, but I'd be a bit surprised if they wrote them to say that if one of the member states decides not to police it's external border, the other member states just have to suck it up.
As it's such an important issue, it would be useful to know what the legal position is.
The legal position is whatever the political ECJ decides it is. There’s a long history of retrospective decisions on such matters to suit the politicians in charge.
The actual CU dates from the Treaty of Rome, so a full understanding of the CU would involve reading and interpreting every single EU Treaty since then.
I'm not blaming you for not knowing. I just said it would be useful to know. It might help us to decide how much weight to give to unattributed comments from Brussels.
But I do think politically the last thing the EU would want to do is punish Ireland.
Nothing will happen. Nothing will be done. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. And endless empty threats. And lots of interviews - much sound and fury signifying nothing.
Leadsom will continue talking nonsense. May will repeat the same pre-programmed statement she’s been boring us rigid with for months and months.
And the Militant Tendency of the Tory party - the ERG - will get their desire. I hope it turns to ashes in their mouths.
The rest of us will just have to cope with what happens. And some of us will wait quietly until the time comes to take our revenge.
Thus spake Cassandra.
Given Cassandra (the prophetess, not the one who married Rodney) was right, that's probably not the example you wished to use...
She predicted 10 of the last 2 recessions though. Or was that Vince Cable?*
* I know it wasn’t
Which reminds me. The other day you asked how to spell "taoiseach". With difficult words I find it helps if you split them into smaller words. (A good example is "there's a rat in the middle of separate"). For taoiseach you can split it into Tao-is-each, which is easier to remember.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
It was Theresa May who made it a negotiating point.
No it wasn’t.
I know you’re a fanboy but it was the EU who insisted from the beginning a solution to the border be included in the WA
It was Theresa May who set red lines that made it necessary to negotiate over Northern Ireland. If she'd admitted that the solution for Northern Ireland would be need to be unique then it could have been handled differently. Your point boils down to an objection that Ireland was able to marshal its allies in the EU to protect its interests.
All May insisted on in Lancaster House is that the CTA be maintained. The CTA of course predates the EU, predates customs agreements and predates the GFA.
In other words she glossed over the issue of a customs border that was explicit in the sections about leaving the single market and customs union, and "maintaining the necessary common standards and frameworks for our own domestic market, empowering the UK as an open, trading nation to strike the best trade deals around the world, and protecting the common resources of our islands."
There's no reason there can't be a customs border. There's already a VAT border, Corporation Tax border, Income Tax border. Why not customs?
On topic this all comes down to the Tory remainers now doesn't it? It's one thing saying that there are 50 Tory MPs who won't permit no deal but it looks like threats won't be enough, when will they strike? Passing Cooper 2 on Feb 27th would do the trick, which sounds more plausible than mass resignation of the whip. I'll wait to see more credible Labour figures than Caroline Flint come out against before I worry about a big Labour rebellion.
I still think that we get an extension because the day ends in a y and we've not had a recent AV thread. If we ask for extension and are declined, no way we can get anything else through, so it's directly the EUs fault it's a no deal. Huge patriotic backlash against Brussels in that case.
An extension doesn't prevent no deal, it just changes the date on which no deal occurs.
The only things that change no deal is a deal being ratified or revocation.
Maybe technically true, but politically naive.
I'm not sure that's true. The prospect of an extension-but-still-no-deal is real. However I'm beginning to think that the later May leaves it, the less possible an extension becomes. There's a famous theory (hypothesis, whatever) that WW1 started because of railway timetables: once mobilisation started it proceeded just to fit in with the train times. There's a bit of a nightmare scenario where May asks for an extension in the last week but is denied because all the (EU) arrangements for no-deal will be in place. I think I could add the Joker line about "it's all part of the plaaaan" here but it's depressing.
I think this is the most worrying scenario. Well before Brexit day we cold start seeing delays at borders, flight cancellations, factory shut downs etc. The Government would be transfixed by trying to solve the problems and go into crisis mode. This is the point where discussion at Westminster may close down. The one place where it wont close down is Scotland. That is why I see Scotland leaving prior to N Ireland. They have the infrastructure in place to move quickly. I have been pondering that if Scotland stayed in EU how would England treat the border.
If impeachment is the House voting to impeach there could be value. If impeachment is the Senate voting to convict then there is no value.
House passing one article of impeachment.
Then Yes at 4 could be value. If any smoking gun is found then the House could vote to impeach even if they have no hope of removing him, just like how Clinton was impeached in the 90s.
It definitely present more value than Trump being removed from office does.
On topic this all comes down to the Tory remainers now doesn't it? It's one thing saying that there are 50 Tory MPs who won't permit no deal but it looks like threats won't be enough, when will they strike? Passing Cooper 2 on Feb 27th would do the trick, which sounds more plausible than mass resignation of the whip. I'll wait to see more credible Labour figures than Caroline Flint come out against before I worry about a big Labour rebellion.
I still think that we get an extension because the day ends in a y and we've not had a recent AV thread. If we ask for extension and are declined, no way we can get anything else through, so it's directly the EUs fault it's a no deal. Huge patriotic backlash against Brussels in that case.
An extension doesn't prevent no deal, it just changes the date on which no deal occurs.
The only things that change no deal is a deal being ratified or revocation.
Maybe technically true, but politically naive.
I'm not sure that's true. The prospect of an extension-but-still-no-deal is real. However I'm beginning to think that the later May leaves it, the less possible an extension becomes. There's a famous theory (hypothesis, whatever) that WW1 started because of railway timetables: once mobilisation started it proceeded just to fit in with the train times. There's a bit of a nightmare scenario where May asks for an extension in the last week but is denied because all the (EU) arrangements for no-deal will be in place. I think I could add the Joker line about "it's all part of the plaaaan" here but it's depressing.
I think this is the most worrying scenario. Well before Brexit day we cold start seeing delays at borders, flight cancellations, factory shut downs etc. The Government would be transfixed by trying to solve the problems and go into crisis mode. This is the point where discussion at Westminster may close down. The one place where it wont close down is Scotland. That is why I see Scotland leaving prior to N Ireland. They have the infrastructure in place to move quickly. I have been pondering that if Scotland stayed in EU how would England treat the border.
"Theresa May would seek passport checks between Scotland and England"
I'm still struggling to appreciate the political ramification of last night's defeat for the Prime Minister. I do think the last vestiges of hope for fans of a second vote are gone and I also don't think there's a majority for extending A50.
To use that well-worn phase, nothing has changed.
It's either the WA, revocation or leaving without a Deal. Since revocation would mean the political suicide of the Conservative Party (no bad thing but I may be in a minority on that) so it's been the same choice as it has been all the way since last December - the WA or No Deal.
On the basis of last night, some suggest the ERG hardcore is 50 MPs - that will be enough to scupper the WA IF Labour remains broadly united. 248 Labour MPs opposed the WA a month ago but as with the events of 1971 it may be some will take country over party, defy Corbyn and support the WA (or abstain). It'll be a clue as to the size of any Labour breakaway.
So much of this comes back to May's failure in the 2017 GE to convert stunning poll leads into a commanding majority - it has dogged her every step of the way since.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
It was Theresa May who made it a negotiating point.
No it wasn’t.
I know you’re a fanboy but it was the EU who insisted from the beginning a solution to the border be included in the WA
It was Theresa May who set red lines that made it necessary to negotiate over Northern Ireland. If she'd admitted that the solution for Northern Ireland would be need to be unique then it could have been handled differently. Your point boils down to an objection that Ireland was able to marshal its allies in the EU to protect its interests.
All May insisted on in Lancaster House is that the CTA be maintained. The CTA of course predates the EU, predates customs agreements and predates the GFA.
In other words she glossed over the issue of a customs border that was explicit in the sections about leaving the single market and customs union, and "maintaining the necessary common standards and frameworks for our own domestic market, empowering the UK as an open, trading nation to strike the best trade deals around the world, and protecting the common resources of our islands."
There's no reason there can't be a customs border. There's already a VAT border, Corporation Tax border, Income Tax border. Why not customs?
I do wonder if those castigating Churchill for the Bengal Famine - ignoring the fact that this was a decision by a coalition government of both Tory and Labour Ministers - will be equally quick to take to Twitter to castigate Attlee for the Labour government's decisions in relation to Indian independence which led to at least a million deaths.
And say that it is time to stop airbrushing the real history of the Labour government 1945-51?
"Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.” As the resistance swelled, he announced: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits”. At other times, he said the plague was “merrily” culling the population."
Maybe it is just that because he is lionised we talk about him more; maybe the history surrounding him and this issue is better preserved. If I saw evidence Attlee held these views, I'd be happy to call him a villain too.
Attlee was very pro-Indian Independence, so I think it unlikely. Churchill was fiercely opposed, indeed this was responsible for his wilderness years. Winston had done some army service in India as I recall.
Attlee was probably the most pro-Indian of the Simon Commission that put India on the road to self government in the 1930's and amongst the most powerful advocates for Dominion status in the 1930's.
Varadkar beginning to panic - Merkel and the EU will have no choice to put in a hard border in no deal, either in Ireland or on continental europe
What is he going to do. Join the UK and leave the EU.
Chickens coming home to roost
What's it got to do with Merkel. The SM/CU is an EU-wide thing. Even if she didn't want a border in Ireland, she can't stop one surely?
And a border in Ireland completely smashes the Good Friday Agreement. Let us pray that there's no return to the troubles that so plagued us from the late 60s till 1998.
Indeed
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
It was Theresa May who made it a negotiating point.
No it wasn’t.
I know you’re a fanboy but it was the EU who insisted from the beginning a solution to the border be included in the WA
It was Theresa May who set red lines that made it necessary to negotiate over Northern Ireland. If she'd admitted that the solution for Northern Ireland would be need to be unique then it could have been handled differently. Your point boils down to an objection that Ireland was able to marshal its allies in the EU to protect its interests.
All May insisted on in Lancaster House is that the CTA be maintained. The CTA of course predates the EU, predates customs agreements and predates the GFA.
In other words she glossed over the issue of a customs border that was explicit in the sections about leaving the single market and customs union, and "maintaining the necessary common standards and frameworks for our own domestic market, empowering the UK as an open, trading nation to strike the best trade deals around the world, and protecting the common resources of our islands."
There's no reason there can't be a customs border. There's already a VAT border, Corporation Tax border, Income Tax border. Why not customs?
Because there can't. Or not a physical one.
Don't mention it.
No need for a physical one.
Where is the physical VAT border? Where is the physical Corporation Tax border? Where is the physical Income Tax border?
I would put the customs border at the same place physically.
On topic this all comes down to the Tory remainers now doesn't it? It's one thing saying that there are 50 Tory MPs who won't permit no deal but it looks like threats won't be enough, when will they strike? Passing Cooper 2 on Feb 27th would do the trick, which sounds more plausible than mass resignation of the whip. I'll wait to see more credible Labour figures than Caroline Flint come out against before I worry about a big Labour rebellion.
I still think that we get an extension because the day ends in a y and we've not had a recent AV thread. If we ask for extension and are declined, no way we can get anything else through, so it's directly the EUs fault it's a no deal. Huge patriotic backlash against Brussels in that case.
An extension doesn't prevent no deal, it just changes the date on which no deal occurs.
The only things that change no deal is a deal being ratified or revocation.
Maybe technically true, but politically naive.
I'm not sure that's true. The prospect of an extension-but-still-no-deal is real. However I'm beginning to think that the later May leaves it, the less possible an extension becomes. There's a famous theory (hypothesis, whatever) that WW1 started because of railway timetables: once mobilisation started it proceeded just to fit in with the train times. There's a bit of a nightmare scenario where May asks for an extension in the last week but is denied because all the (EU) arrangements for no-deal will be in place. I think I could add the Joker line about "it's all part of the plaaaan" here but it's depressing.
I think this is the most worrying scenario. Well before Brexit day we cold start seeing delays at borders, flight cancellations, factory shut downs etc. The Government would be transfixed by trying to solve the problems and go into crisis mode. This is the point where discussion at Westminster may close down. The one place where it wont close down is Scotland. That is why I see Scotland leaving prior to N Ireland. They have the infrastructure in place to move quickly. I have been pondering that if Scotland stayed in EU how would England treat the border.
"Theresa May would seek passport checks between Scotland and England"
Their internal rules appear to be able to be ‘flexible’ when it suits them, even if they appear fixed to an outsider. Note the passport checks in between Schengen countries over the last few years, to curb illegal immigration.
It does seem like the EU are giving Ireland the choice to either put up a ‘proper’ border with the U.K. or have one imposed on them in Calais and Rotterdam. I wonder when Varadkar realises they’ve been using him all along?
They appear fixed to an outsider who doesn't know what it says in the treaty. If you know what it says in the treaty, you know that it allows for border controls to be reintroduced, as long as it's temporary and proportional to the threat they're supposed to address.
I have no idea what it says in whatever treaties control customs, but I'd be a bit surprised if they wrote them to say that if one of the member states decides not to police it's external border, the other member states just have to suck it up.
As it's such an important issue, it would be useful to know what the legal position is.
The legal position is whatever the political ECJ decides it is. There’s a long history of retrospective decisions on such matters to suit the politicians in charge.
The actual CU dates from the Treaty of Rome, so a full understanding of the CU would involve reading and interpreting every single EU Treaty since then.
I'm not blaming you for not knowing. I just said it would be useful to know. It might help us to decide how much weight to give to unattributed comments from Brussels.
But I do think politically the last thing the EU would want to do is punish Ireland.
It isn’t that I don’t know, but that nobody knows how the ECJ might rule on any particular subject.
The same thinking applies to A50 revocation, and whether that’s something the PM can do, the HoC can do with a single vote, or whether primary legislation is required.
Certainly very few commentators expected the ECJ to rule the way they did on the revocation question, given the text of the Treaties they were asked to interpret, but they decided that unilateral revocation of the A50 notice was perfectly okay.
On topic this all comes down to the Tory remainers now doesn't it? It's one thing saying that there are 50 Tory MPs who won't permit no deal but it looks like threats won't be enough, when will they strike? Passing Cooper 2 on Feb 27th would do the trick, which sounds more plausible than mass resignation of the whip. I'll wait to see more credible Labour figures than Caroline Flint come out against before I worry about a big Labour rebellion.
I still think that we get an extension because the day ends in a y and we've not had a recent AV thread. If we ask for extension and are declined, no way we can get anything else through, so it's directly the EUs fault it's a no deal. Huge patriotic backlash against Brussels in that case.
An extension doesn't prevent no deal, it just changes the date on which no deal occurs.
The only things that change no deal is a deal being ratified or revocation.
Maybe technically true, but politically naive.
I'm not sure that's true. The prospect of an extension-but-still-no-deal is real. However I'm beginning to think that the later May leaves it, the less possible an extension becomes. There's a famous theory (hypothesis, whatever) that WW1 started because of railway timetables: once mobilisation started it proceeded just to fit in with the train times. There's a bit of a nightmare scenario where May asks for an extension in the last week but is denied because all the (EU) arrangements for no-deal will be in place. I think I could add the Joker line about "it's all part of the plaaaan" here but it's depressing.
I think this is the most worrying scenario. Well before Brexit day we cold start seeing delays at borders, flight cancellations, factory shut downs etc. The Government would be transfixed by trying to solve the problems and go into crisis mode. This is the point where discussion at Westminster may close down. The one place where it wont close down is Scotland. That is why I see Scotland leaving prior to N Ireland. They have the infrastructure in place to move quickly. I have been pondering that if Scotland stayed in EU how would England treat the border.
This Churchill stuff. Shades of grey - but the retards of Twitter can’t do that because it involves subtly, thought and honesty. I return to my view that social media will kill liberal democracy.
You could argue the problem isn't social media itself, it's the people who use it.
Such people have always existed but have hitherto been easily ignorable or ostracisible.
Twitter not only gives them a mass platform to the world but rewards dialogue on the most outlandish things through raising its profile to the top.
Their internal rules appear to be able to be ‘flexible’ when it suits them, even if they appear fixed to an outsider. Note the passport checks in between Schengen countries over the last few years, to curb illegal immigration.
It does seem like the EU are giving Ireland the choice to either put up a ‘proper’ border with the U.K. or have one imposed on them in Calais and Rotterdam. I wonder when Varadkar realises they’ve been using him all along?
They appear fixed to an outsider who doesn't know what it says in the treaty. If you know what it says in the treaty, you know that it allows for border controls to be reintroduced, as long as it's temporary and proportional to the threat they're supposed to address.
I have no idea what it says in whatever treaties control customs, but I'd be a bit surprised if they wrote them to say that if one of the member states decides not to police it's external border, the other member states just have to suck it up.
As it's such an important issue, it would be useful to know what the legal position is.
The legal position is whatever the political ECJ decides it is. There’s a long history of retrospective decisions on such matters to suit the politicians in charge.
The actual CU dates from the Treaty of Rome, so a full understanding of the CU would involve reading and interpreting every single EU Treaty since then.
I'm not blaming you for not knowing. I just said it would be useful to know. It might help us to decide how much weight to give to unattributed comments from Brussels.
But I do think politically the last thing the EU would want to do is punish Ireland.
It isn’t that I don’t know, ...
It's just that you said "The actual CU dates from the Treaty of Rome, so a full understanding of the CU would involve reading and interpreting every single EU Treaty since then."
I assumed that meant you hadn't done that, but who knows?
Trump has told allies he sees Biden, who remains undecided on a 2020 bid, as the most formidable potential general election rival. The president has said privately that Biden would appeal to a wider swath of voters than other Democratic hopefuls.
It's funny how people are talking about Churchill just at a time when we've got plenty of other more important things to discuss. (Not on PB, in general).
Much easier to fight a safe straw man than deal with the problems and nasty characters of today.
Putin murders journalists and dissidents in the most horrible ways imaginable, including on our soil, and uses military force to invade and annexe neighbouring countries, but the only real criticism I’ve ever seen on him on social media (around the time of Sochi) is that he’s a bit of a homophobe.
In fact, I’ve seen those actions defended more often than criticised.
My view on WSC, who was a Liberal Unionist rather than a traditional Conservative, is one of unfettered admiration for his time as Prime Minister during WW2. He galvanised and enthused the British people at our greatest time of trial and produced magnificent and commanding oratory to convince and cajole us into believing not only in our survival but in final victory. He was the embodiment of that resistance, that spirit, that belief.
Victory could not however been achieved without the transformation of Britain into a war economy and Churchill was fortunate to have alongside him in the Wartime Coalition men of extraordinary ability such as Attlee, Morrison, Eden and Bevin. I don't think the other members of the War Cabinet get the recognition they deserve.
On foreign as distinct from military matters, Churchill called it right more often than wrong but it was clear he found the notion of the post-war world run in reality from Washington and Moscow difficult. On military matters, his record is poor and generally as a peace-time politician, it's not a wholly positive story but all that is eclipsed by being the man in the right place at the right time when he was needed most.
Trump has told allies he sees Biden, who remains undecided on a 2020 bid, as the most formidable potential general election rival. The president has said privately that Biden would appeal to a wider swath of voters than other Democratic hopefuls.
My view on WSC, who was a Liberal Unionist rather than a traditional Conservative, is one of unfettered admiration for his time as Prime Minister during WW2. He galvanised and enthused the British people at our greatest time of trial and produced magnificent and commanding oratory to convince and cajole us into believing not only in our survival but in final victory. He was the embodiment of that resistance, that spirit, that belief.
Victory could not however been achieved without the transformation of Britain into a war economy and Churchill was fortunate to have alongside him in the Wartime Coalition men of extraordinary ability such as Attlee, Morrison, Eden and Bevin. I don't think the other members of the War Cabinet get the recognition they deserve.
On foreign as distinct from military matters, Churchill called it right more often than wrong but it was clear he found the notion of the post-war world run in reality from Washington and Moscow difficult. On military matters, his record is poor and generally as a peace-time politician, it's not a wholly positive story but all that is eclipsed by being the man in the right place at the right time when he was needed most.
Excellent post which I agree with. He was the right man at the time for Britain to secure resistance. Before the USA and Russia would seal the victory.
There's no reason there can't be a customs border. There's already a VAT border, Corporation Tax border, Income Tax border. Why not customs?
Because there can't. Or not a physical one.
Don't mention it.
No need for a physical one.
Where is the physical VAT border? Where is the physical Corporation Tax border? Where is the physical Income Tax border?
I would put the customs border at the same place physically.
And where would you put phytosanitary checks?
I would aim to reach an agreement that they're not needed at the border with a broad mutual co-operation agreement.
Otherwise at the border if such an agreement is not reached.
In other words you need to negotiate, and the need for negotiation is created by the decision to leave the single market and customs union and insist this must be UK-wide.
My view on WSC, who was a Liberal Unionist rather than a traditional Conservative, is one of unfettered admiration for his time as Prime Minister during WW2. He galvanised and enthused the British people at our greatest time of trial and produced magnificent and commanding oratory to convince and cajole us into believing not only in our survival but in final victory. He was the embodiment of that resistance, that spirit, that belief.
Victory could not however been achieved without the transformation of Britain into a war economy and Churchill was fortunate to have alongside him in the Wartime Coalition men of extraordinary ability such as Attlee, Morrison, Eden and Bevin. I don't think the other members of the War Cabinet get the recognition they deserve.
On foreign as distinct from military matters, Churchill called it right more often than wrong but it was clear he found the notion of the post-war world run in reality from Washington and Moscow difficult. On military matters, his record is poor and generally as a peace-time politician, it's not a wholly positive story but all that is eclipsed by being the man in the right place at the right time when he was needed most.
The other members of the War Cabinet were certainly recognised by Churchill himself. His six volume account of the war (yes, I read them all!) reveal great admiration for the other members of his Government. In fact if memory serves me right he comments that the UK never had such a talented array of Ministers in office at one time, and were never likely to again.
In reading the volumes it is generally difficult if not impossible to tell which Parties the Ministers come from unless you happen to know already. Churchill rarely if ever refers to their Party allegiances. Seems to have been one of strengths that he recognised and rewarded talents regardless of Party.
There's no reason there can't be a customs border. There's already a VAT border, Corporation Tax border, Income Tax border. Why not customs?
Because there can't. Or not a physical one.
Don't mention it.
No need for a physical one.
Where is the physical VAT border? Where is the physical Corporation Tax border? Where is the physical Income Tax border?
I would put the customs border at the same place physically.
And where would you put phytosanitary checks?
I would aim to reach an agreement that they're not needed at the border with a broad mutual co-operation agreement.
Otherwise at the border if such an agreement is not reached.
In other words you need to negotiate, and the need for negotiation is created by the decision to leave the single market and customs union and insist this must be UK-wide.
No shit Sherlock.
The need to negotiate does not mean the backstop or that we must adhere to EU rules after we have left.
Not bad - it picks a blob covering where I was born, and where my dad is from.
Likewise, I'm from the east end of london as is my mum's side of the family (barking & walthamstow) and it picks "southend" but highlights mainly eastern london & essex and it picked "portsmouth" - my dad is from bournemouth area which is in dark red highlight.
I'm a bit of a mix.
The first section put me close enough to where I spent most of my childhood (East Anglia), and the full 100 questions came up strongly where I spent two very formative years in the south (aged 2-4). But I'm a bit of a mongrel/nomad and wasn't expecting very clear answers.
Quite a substantial move on the "will Trump be impeached" market, No in from 2.00 (around the time of the US elections) into 1.30 today.
Is Yes now value?
It was certainly a great lay at evens.
IMO one of the best rules to follow in betting on politics is to go against things that are the current subject of great excitement and speculation. Short the buzz, buy back the dawning of a more prosaic reality. It almost always works.
An excellent current Brexit example is a No Deal crash-out on 29th March.
People generally are getting well over-heated about this. It is a highly unlikely outcome and yet could be laid a few days ago at close to 30%. Even now at 23% I would lay it for size if I hadn't already.
Comments
I have no idea what it says in whatever treaties control customs, but I'd be a bit surprised if they wrote them to say that if one of the member states decides not to police it's external border, the other member states just have to suck it up.
I still think that we get an extension because the day ends in a y and we've not had a recent AV thread.
If we ask for extension and are declined, no way we can get anything else through, so it's directly the EUs fault it's a no deal. Huge patriotic backlash against Brussels in that case.
This is why I am so pissed if with the EU trying to make it a negotiating point
It should have been handled bilaterally
Wankers
The only things that change no deal is a deal being ratified or revocation.
When people complain about a decline in political discourse I just roll my eyes.
I’m not aware of any country which has the phrase, “too clever by half”. The mass of Britons appear to relish stupidity.
Surely, surely the grown ups will make the changes to the withdrawal agreement necessary to get it over the line.
Nothing to do with customs or anything else.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/15/brexit-lies-curry-vote-leave-restaurant-industry
At the time, the Bangladesh Caterers Association was worried about an average of four restaurants closing a week, rising rents and soaring business rates. Both Priti Patel and Boris Johnson approached us to collaborate with and support the Save Our Curry Houses campaign set up by Vote Leave. They said if we were to support the leave campaign, they would ensure we were able to get more chefs from south Asia by relaxing immigration rules with lower salary thresholds to hire staff from outside the EU.
And we made the mistake of believing them...
I know you’re a fanboy but it was the EU who insisted from the beginning a solution to the border be included in the WA
* I know it wasn’t
The actual CU dates from the Treaty of Rome, so a full understanding of the CU would involve reading and interpreting every single EU Treaty since then.
"Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.” As the resistance swelled, he announced: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits”. At other times, he said the plague was “merrily” culling the population."
Maybe it is just that because he is lionised we talk about him more; maybe the history surrounding him and this issue is better preserved. If I saw evidence Attlee held these views, I'd be happy to call him a villain too.
I am 52% leave, 48% remain, just like the UK was. The reason is simple. I am very sympathetic to the common market element of the EU and very unsympathetic to the EU as a political project. My best guess is that the majority of the population are still somewhere around there - they like the trading project, and since the referendum like it even more, and don't like the political project of Euro, armies, social intervention, elections, foreign policies, diplomats, parliaments distribution of regional funds etc. Polling over 'Leave' and 'Remain' tells you nothing of any depth because the answer has to be 100% on one side or the other, and that is not where we are.
The way debate goes in our world means that almost no voice is given to the people who say that there is a strong case for both sides. Even PB is not very good at it. But it is true. There is a strong case for both sides. Neither campaign got close to expressing it well.
In the world of likely politics, crashing out is a risk including the risk of breaking up the union and a lot of other difficulties. This may not happen, but politicians don't like risk, nor do most voters when put to the test.
Only TMs deal or a clear steer towards Norway for Now gets us close to squaring the circle. There is no perfect solution because - and this was high order folly - freedom of movement is inextricably linked to both the political project and the trading project.
In my view since FoM for states with a very different economic profile and Mr Cameron's failure to get movement on the FoM issue there cannot be sane outcome until FoM belongs to the political and not the trading project.
Until then, and it must change sometime, TMs deal is the best on offer.
It seems as though you might be indulging in the vice yourself.
Is Yes now value?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.148087688
If impeachment is the House voting to impeach there could be value.
If impeachment is the Senate voting to convict then there is no value.
My view on WSC, who was a Liberal Unionist rather than a traditional Conservative, is one of unfettered admiration for his time as Prime Minister during WW2. He galvanised and enthused the British people at our greatest time of trial and produced magnificent and commanding oratory to convince and cajole us into believing not only in our survival but in final victory. He was the embodiment of that resistance, that spirit, that belief.
Victory could not however been achieved without the transformation of Britain into a war economy and Churchill was fortunate to have alongside him in the Wartime Coalition men of extraordinary ability such as Attlee, Morrison, Eden and Bevin. I don't think the other members of the War Cabinet get the recognition they deserve.
On foreign as distinct from military matters, Churchill called it right more often than wrong but it was clear he found the notion of the post-war world run in reality from Washington and Moscow difficult. On military matters, his record is poor and generally as a peace-time politician, it's not a wholly positive story but all that is eclipsed by being the man in the right place at the right time when he was needed most.
That doesn't happen here.
But I do think politically the last thing the EU would want to do is punish Ireland.
It definitely present more value than Trump being removed from office does.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/14/passport-checks-needed-between-independent-scotland-and-england
To use that well-worn phase, nothing has changed.
It's either the WA, revocation or leaving without a Deal. Since revocation would mean the political suicide of the Conservative Party (no bad thing but I may be in a minority on that) so it's been the same choice as it has been all the way since last December - the WA or No Deal.
On the basis of last night, some suggest the ERG hardcore is 50 MPs - that will be enough to scupper the WA IF Labour remains broadly united. 248 Labour MPs opposed the WA a month ago but as with the events of 1971 it may be some will take country over party, defy Corbyn and support the WA (or abstain). It'll be a clue as to the size of any Labour breakaway.
So much of this comes back to May's failure in the 2017 GE to convert stunning poll leads into a commanding majority - it has dogged her every step of the way since.
Don't mention it.
Attlee was probably the most pro-Indian of the Simon Commission that put India on the road to self government in the 1930's and amongst the most powerful advocates for Dominion status in the 1930's.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Commission
Where is the physical VAT border?
Where is the physical Corporation Tax border?
Where is the physical Income Tax border?
I would put the customs border at the same place physically.
Hmmm.
The same thinking applies to A50 revocation, and whether that’s something the PM can do, the HoC can do with a single vote, or whether primary legislation is required.
Certainly very few commentators expected the ECJ to rule the way they did on the revocation question, given the text of the Treaties they were asked to interpret, but they decided that unilateral revocation of the A50 notice was perfectly okay.
Twitter not only gives them a mass platform to the world but rewards dialogue on the most outlandish things through raising its profile to the top.
I assumed that meant you hadn't done that, but who knows?
Otherwise at the border if such an agreement is not reached.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/14/trump-2020-strategy-democrats-1169379
Putin murders journalists and dissidents in the most horrible ways imaginable, including on our soil, and uses military force to invade and annexe neighbouring countries, but the only real criticism I’ve ever seen on him on social media (around the time of Sochi) is that he’s a bit of a homophobe.
In fact, I’ve seen those actions defended more often than criticised.
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1096393534238793729
He was the right man at the time for Britain to secure resistance.
Before the USA and Russia would seal the victory.
In reading the volumes it is generally difficult if not impossible to tell which Parties the Ministers come from unless you happen to know already. Churchill rarely if ever refers to their Party allegiances. Seems to have been one of strengths that he recognised and rewarded talents regardless of Party.
The need to negotiate does not mean the backstop or that we must adhere to EU rules after we have left.
The first section put me close enough to where I spent most of my childhood (East Anglia), and the full 100 questions came up strongly where I spent two very formative years in the south (aged 2-4). But I'm a bit of a mongrel/nomad and wasn't expecting very clear answers.
IMO one of the best rules to follow in betting on politics is to go against things that are the current subject of great excitement and speculation. Short the buzz, buy back the dawning of a more prosaic reality. It almost always works.
An excellent current Brexit example is a No Deal crash-out on 29th March.
People generally are getting well over-heated about this. It is a highly unlikely outcome and yet could be laid a few days ago at close to 30%. Even now at 23% I would lay it for size if I hadn't already.