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.
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.
Fantastic. But you would be alone in thinking a customs/phytosanitary border could work anywhere but, er, on the border.
No I would not be. In fact the previous Taoiseach was working on it.
Yes this is something that Alanbrooke mentions. I haven't been able to pin it down and would appreciate it if you could re-post the link to the details.
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.
This all started because Charles complained about "the EU" (as Leo Varadkar said - "I am the EU") making Northern Ireland an issue in negotiations.
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.
Many Democrats are very alive to the risk of doing that (the Clinton impeachment clearly backfired on the Republicans). But there has to be a chance that they can't avoid it if Mueller is sufficiently damning.
Wollaston looked decidedly uncomfortable on PL having the true nature of the party she supposedly represents spelled out for her.
Well she was elected as a Eurosceptic and campaigned as a Brexiteer herself so it shouldn't be that big of a surprise.
Wollaston believes she was elected as Wollaston.
Thanks to the primary experiment by which she was selected.
It’s certainly caused me to have my doubts.
I’m the same. In theory open primaries are a great idea. I guess it’s like saying that party whips are a bad idea and more independents are a good idea - which works in theory, but when the Parliamentary maths make things close its a nightmare. Classic Prisoner’s Dilemma Issue.
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.
In the end it will get through (either without or after extension) on Labour abstentions with some Labour votes for the (slightly revised) deal. Everything leading up to the last vote at the last moment will be as gnomic and meaningless as progress so far.
Because of all the smoke and mirrors so far there has been amazingly little discussion of what happens afterwards. Like the campaign to rejoin starts within days...…..and plenty more to speculate on.
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.
This all started because Charles complained about "the EU" (as Leo Varadkar said - "I am the EU") making Northern Ireland an issue in negotiations.
Yes it shouldn't have been.
Negotiations for reaching a phythosanitary agreement, like the phytosanitary agreement in CETA, should have been part of the trade talks.
It was the insistance upon dealing with Ireland without dealing with trade, which is impossible, which has caused this mess.
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.
2017 was a disaster and subsequently May has continued in the same way. She's either a terrible strategist and negotiator or a committed BRINO supporter who'd conned everybody over the last 2 years.
Overarching everything is how terrible a political leader she is, worse than Brown and that's saying something.
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.
Scotland cannot 'stay' in the EU as it's not currently a member. It would be one thing for Scotland to negotiate provisional membership terms prior to independence, in an atmosphere of mutual co-operation between Edinburgh, London and Brussels; it's a rather different one to envisage Scotland retaining membership as the UK leaves, which implies both independence and accession, all happening within the space of months, or even weeks, in an atmosphere of pre-existing crisis.
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.
I suppose it depends on who you follow. I have seen Putin heavily criticised on my twitter feed for interfering in elections, stirring up right wing nationalism etc.
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.
This all started because Charles complained about "the EU" (as Leo Varadkar said - "I am the EU") making Northern Ireland an issue in negotiations.
Yes it shouldn't have been.
Negotiations for reaching a phythosanitary agreement, like the phytosanitary agreement in CETA, should have been part of the trade talks.
It was the insistance upon dealing with Ireland without dealing with trade, which is impossible, which has caused this mess.
The backstop arose because of the implausibility of a Canada-style trade deal being able to deliver a frictionless border. It allows May to protect her Lancaster House red lines while kicking the can beyond Brexit.
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.
Ironically I suspect the odds of us crashing out on 29th March isn't highly unlikely - it's possibly 50/50 based on the inability of Parliament to make a decision.
Wollaston looked decidedly uncomfortable on PL having the true nature of the party she supposedly represents spelled out for her.
Well she was elected as a Eurosceptic and campaigned as a Brexiteer herself so it shouldn't be that big of a surprise.
Wollaston believes she was elected as Wollaston.
Thanks to the primary experiment by which she was selected.
It’s certainly caused me to have my doubts.
I’m the same. In theory open primaries are a great idea. I guess it’s like saying that party whips are a bad idea and more independents are a good idea - which works in theory, but when the Parliamentary maths make things close its a nightmare. Classic Prisoner’s Dilemma Issue.
As long as you want both independent minded MPs and party unity you are in very obvious unicorn territory. It's not an option to have both.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
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.
This all started because Charles complained about "the EU" (as Leo Varadkar said - "I am the EU") making Northern Ireland an issue in negotiations.
Yes it shouldn't have been.
Negotiations for reaching a phythosanitary agreement, like the phytosanitary agreement in CETA, should have been part of the trade talks.
It was the insistance upon dealing with Ireland without dealing with trade, which is impossible, which has caused this mess.
The backstop arose because of the implausibility of a Canada-style trade deal being able to deliver a frictionless border. It allows May to protect her Lancaster House red lines while kicking the can beyond Brexit.
It is plausible to deliver a frictionless border, if both parties are willing to cooperate. There is no reason we can't agree a deal with mutual recognition of phytosanitary checks. There's no reason we can't handle customs away from the border like corporation tax, VAT, income tax and every other tax which is all that customs is.
It spells out the risk of "accidental" no deal very clearly, which seems substantial to me. The requirement for the UK to come up with a workable plan around which it can coalesce (NB for more than ten days) seems quite a high bar to me.
On the Brexit date, I think there's a scenario which isn't receiving enough attention, namely that we crash out without a deal, but with an agreed extension to give both sides a bit more time to put in place mitigating measures. My thinking here is that if it remains the case that parliament cannot agree anything because Labour continues to work with the ERG to block an orderly exit, then a few extra weeks to prepare would help the EU side as well as us.
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.
It spells out the risk of "accidental" no deal very clearly, which seems substantial to me. The requirement for the UK to come up with a workable plan around which it can coalesce (NB for more than ten days) seems quite a high bar to me.
The word workable is the problem. Who determines what is workable?
For the UK replacing the backstop is workable. Parliament has voted for that. Compared to no deal replacing the backstop is sensible.
For reasons of dogma alone the EU aren't prepared to and are prepared to risk no deal it seems at the moment.
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.
Better value, perhaps, is not to be the nominee. Slightly longer odds, but covers all eventualities.
It really doesn't.
Fair enough - a different and wider set of eventualities.
Though I seriously doubt that evidence against Trump strong enough to persuade Pelosi to take the gamble of backing impeachment would allow his nomination in 2020.
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.
Many Democrats are very alive to the risk of doing that (the Clinton impeachment clearly backfired on the Republicans). But there has to be a chance that they can't avoid it if Mueller is sufficiently damning.
The Clinton impeachment was, in essence, over an abuse of a power relationship. You can argue the legal point about obstruction and so on but it all got very tawdry and I can see why the public thought it wasn't really an impeachable issue and that the GOP were overplaying their hand.
There is a similar risk re Trump but the core of the allegations are of a substantially more serious nature - colluding with a foreign and hostile power to affect an election. Certainly there's a risk that could go wrong for the Dems but a purely partisan defence in light of damning evidence (should there be any) could be at least as bad for the Republicans.
On the Brexit date, I think there's a scenario which isn't receiving enough attention, namely that we crash out without a deal, but with an agreed extension to give both sides a bit more time to put in place mitigating measures. My thinking here is that if it remains the case that parliament cannot agree anything because Labour continues to work with the ERG to block an orderly exit, then a few extra weeks to prepare would help the EU side as well as us.
Interesting but needs a bit of clarification. If an extension is agreed then we have not crashed out, as we have not left the EU. Once there were an extension then any of the possibilities can still happen. Until we have left and become a 'Third Country' all then possibilities remain open. An extension cannot bind the future.
Scotland cannot 'stay' in the EU as it's not currently a member. It would be one thing for Scotland to negotiate provisional membership terms prior to independence, in an atmosphere of mutual co-operation between Edinburgh, London and Brussels; it's a rather different one to envisage Scotland retaining membership as the UK leaves, which implies both independence and accession, all happening within the space of months, or even weeks, in an atmosphere of pre-existing crisis.
Well the way this might have happened, in an alternate universe where the English Democrats eclipsed UKIP, is if the English voted for Independence from the UK. This would see England leave the EU, but Scotland and Northern Ireland remain (as they voted in 2016). Only Wales is in a less comfortable position than in the current reality.
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.
Many Democrats are very alive to the risk of doing that (the Clinton impeachment clearly backfired on the Republicans). But there has to be a chance that they can't avoid it if Mueller is sufficiently damning.
The Clinton impeachment was, in essence, over an abuse of a power relationship. You can argue the legal point about obstruction and so on but it all got very tawdry and I can see why the public thought it wasn't really an impeachable issue and that the GOP were overplaying their hand.
There is a similar risk re Trump but the core of the allegations are of a substantially more serious nature - colluding with a foreign and hostile power to affect an election. Certainly there's a risk that could go wrong for the Dems but a purely partisan defence in light of damning evidence (should there be any) could be at least as bad for the Republicans.
Ironically if the Clinton allegations came out now, in the #MeToo era, they may have been considered more serious than they were then.
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.
Many Democrats are very alive to the risk of doing that (the Clinton impeachment clearly backfired on the Republicans). But there has to be a chance that they can't avoid it if Mueller is sufficiently damning.
The Clinton impeachment was, in essence, over an abuse of a power relationship. You can argue the legal point about obstruction and so on but it all got very tawdry and I can see why the public thought it wasn't really an impeachable issue and that the GOP were overplaying their hand.
There is a similar risk re Trump but the core of the allegations are of a substantially more serious nature - colluding with a foreign and hostile power to affect an election. Certainly there's a risk that could go wrong for the Dems but a purely partisan defence in light of damning evidence (should there be any) could be at least as bad for the Republicans.
It's very clear that the Democratic leadership are well aware of the political dangers of trying to impeach Trump. If they do go for it, I don't think Trump will be the nominee.
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.
Many Democrats are very alive to the risk of doing that (the Clinton impeachment clearly backfired on the Republicans). But there has to be a chance that they can't avoid it if Mueller is sufficiently damning.
The Clinton impeachment was, in essence, over an abuse of a power relationship. You can argue the legal point about obstruction and so on but it all got very tawdry and I can see why the public thought it wasn't really an impeachable issue and that the GOP were overplaying their hand.
There is a similar risk re Trump but the core of the allegations are of a substantially more serious nature - colluding with a foreign and hostile power to affect an election. Certainly there's a risk that could go wrong for the Dems but a purely partisan defence in light of damning evidence (should there be any) could be at least as bad for the Republicans.
Ironically if the Clinton allegations came out now, in the #MeToo era, they may have been considered more serious than they were then.
True. Indeed, given the closeness of the result, the legacy of that saga may have been the difference between Hillary winning in 2016 and not.
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.
Many Democrats are very alive to the risk of doing that (the Clinton impeachment clearly backfired on the Republicans). But there has to be a chance that they can't avoid it if Mueller is sufficiently damning.
The Clinton impeachment was, in essence, over an abuse of a power relationship. You can argue the legal point about obstruction and so on but it all got very tawdry and I can see why the public thought it wasn't really an impeachable issue and that the GOP were overplaying their hand.
There is a similar risk re Trump but the core of the allegations are of a substantially more serious nature - colluding with a foreign and hostile power to affect an election. Certainly there's a risk that could go wrong for the Dems but a purely partisan defence in light of damning evidence (should there be any) could be at least as bad for the Republicans.
Ironically if the Clinton allegations came out now, in the #MeToo era, they may have been considered more serious than they were then.
It would have destroyed his standing in the party (and to some extent it now has). But there would have been a heated argument over whether it met the test of "high crimes and misdemeanours". The allegations against Trump, if proven, do so.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
Interesting but needs a bit of clarification. If an extension is agreed then we have not crashed out, as we have not left the EU. Once there were an extension then any of the possibilities can still happen. Until we have left and become a 'Third Country' all then possibilities remain open. An extension cannot bind the future.
True, that's an important point. However, I was assuming it would be a fairly short extension and that therefore the UK political landscape wouldn't have changed to make a deal more palatable to parliament. As I think you are implying, though, the mere fact of the extension could nudge things in a different direction.
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.
Ironically I suspect the odds of us crashing out on 29th March isn't highly unlikely - it's possibly 50/50 based on the inability of Parliament to make a decision.
A few days ago I put the probabilities at
No Deal 55% May's Deal 30% Different Deal (other than tinkerings) 5% Revoke 10%
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
But Churchill was a Tory while Attlee was Labour - a party that sees itself as having a higher moral purpose.
On the Brexit date, I think there's a scenario which isn't receiving enough attention, namely that we crash out without a deal, but with an agreed extension to give both sides a bit more time to put in place mitigating measures. My thinking here is that if it remains the case that parliament cannot agree anything because Labour continues to work with the ERG to block an orderly exit, then a few extra weeks to prepare would help the EU side as well as us.
So you would have an agreement at the EU Council in late March for there to be a no deal exit on April 26th. This sounds a bit like a "managed no deal", but there doesn't really seem to be any way of managing some of the problems thrown up by a no deal exit - such as the Irish border - without the sort of comprehensive deal represented by the Withdrawal Agreement.
What I think more likely is that there is a short extension, which doesn't take us into the next European parliament period, to try and provide enough extra time to get the deal done, but then we no deal at the end of that because it proves much less acceptable to have an extension into the new Parliament.
Given May's so called deal keeps us in the EU in every way nearly possible, I'm very confused why all the remainer types aren't in full support of it.
May's Deal ultimately brings to an end freedom of movement. There are lots of other ways in which it has us leave the EU in ways that would upset Remainers - perhaps it's your characterisation of the Deal that is more confused than the behaviour of Remainers?
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
The conversation was wholly about Churchill - it wasn't about Attlee. If you want to start a discussion about Attlee being a criminal and responsible for more than a million deaths, please present your argument and we'll consider it.
Churchill was someone who always wanted to be at the front line of a war.
I read a few years ago his autobiography of his youth, My Early Life, which was subsequently made into a film - Young Winston. Quite a rollacoster adventure.
He was in the Cavalry in India and managed to get himself sent to a war against the Afghans in 1897 (as well as writing as a war reporter for the Telegraph).
It was his subsequent exploits in the Boer War that made him a household name.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
The conversation was wholly about Churchill - it wasn't about Attlee. If you want to start a discussion about Attlee being a criminal and responsible for more than a million deaths, please present your argument and we'll consider it.
When did I say he was a criminal? But that his government was responsible for a million or so deaths (some estimates put it at two million) is hardly a controversial point. For some utterly bizarre reason, he seems to escape the blame that Blair, for example, gets.
Ironically I suspect the odds of us crashing out on 29th March isn't highly unlikely - it's possibly 50/50 based on the inability of Parliament to make a decision.
Fair enough! It's all about how one assesses the probabilities. No differences in opinion means no market and that would be very boring.
Pity you and I can't just bet with each other. I would give you MUCH better odds than the even money which you think is fair.
On the Brexit date, I think there's a scenario which isn't receiving enough attention, namely that we crash out without a deal, but with an agreed extension to give both sides a bit more time to put in place mitigating measures. My thinking here is that if it remains the case that parliament cannot agree anything because Labour continues to work with the ERG to block an orderly exit, then a few extra weeks to prepare would help the EU side as well as us.
That is the rational course for the UK to be following now. Namely, for the UK to leave on 29th March with the proviso that it makes a take it or leave it offer to the EU where the UK would continue as now for an agreed temporary period, perhaps for 3 or 6 months or even longer. If the EU did not play ball the UK would resort to the default of leaving on WTO terms. The EU might reject those terms up to 29th March in order to call our bluff, but they would accept them within a few days of our leaving.
In April, negotiations over a permanent deal could then resume. The difference would be that the negotiations would take place in a context where the UK had already left. By accepting that Brexit was a reality, the EU would for the first time be required to negotiate in good faith, rather than from the aim of trying to persuade the UK not to leave by simply offering the worst possible terms that we are bound to reject.
There is no such thing as "No Deal" Brexit. The question is whether a deal is reached before or after the UK leaves.
Interesting but needs a bit of clarification. If an extension is agreed then we have not crashed out, as we have not left the EU. Once there were an extension then any of the possibilities can still happen. Until we have left and become a 'Third Country' all then possibilities remain open. An extension cannot bind the future.
True, that's an important point. However, I was assuming it would be a fairly short extension and that therefore the UK political landscape wouldn't have changed to make a deal more palatable to parliament. As I think you are implying, though, the mere fact of the extension could nudge things in a different direction.
Yes, that's interesting and it may be right. I'm not sure that we shall know much more about the political landscape until push comes to shove at the latest possible WA vote before 29th March - which I think will probably pass; but if not then, then it will pass soon after following a short agreed extension.
One tiny straw in the wind, apart from the fact that Kenneth Clarke voted for the WA which must mean at least that it is more or less sane, the WA as it now stands is the nearest thing available to kicking the can down the road, and it does so for quite a time. Nothing else does so with any sort of reliability. As Matt's cartoon MP said a few days ago 'The tin can won't kick itself down the road'. well, come 29th March indeed it won't so it's odds on TM's 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.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
The conversation was wholly about Churchill - it wasn't about Attlee. If you want to start a discussion about Attlee being a criminal and responsible for more than a million deaths, please present your argument and we'll consider it.
When did I say he was a criminal? But that his government was responsible for a million or so deaths (some estimates put it at two million) is hardly a controversial point. For some utterly bizarre reason, he seems to escape the blame that Blair, for example, gets.
I don't know enough about the event to come to a conclusion about Atlee's culpability on the spur of the moment, but I suspect that it's convenient that Mountbatten was involved. You can see why he would be an appealing fall-guy for those wanting to protect Atlee's reputation.
Where the balance of blame lies between the two of them I could not say.
When did I say he was a criminal? But that his government was responsible for a million or so deaths (some estimates put it at two million) is hardly a controversial point. For some utterly bizarre reason, he seems to escape the blame that Blair, for example, gets.
Are we talking about Partition? Fair point - plenty of blame to throw around.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
But Churchill was a Tory while Attlee was Labour - a party that sees itself as having a higher moral purpose.
Churchill was a Liberal during his 'gas the Iraqis' days, wasn't he (and Tonypandy, and Gallipoli, and Sidney St etc etc)?
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.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
But Churchill was a Tory while Attlee was Labour - a party that sees itself as having a higher moral purpose.
Churchill was a Liberal during his 'gas the Iraqis' days, wasn't he (and Tonypandy, and Gallipoli, and Sidney St etc etc)?
Seeing as anyone to the right of Stalin is a Tory scum bas***d, then your historical detail probably wont cut any ice.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
The conversation was wholly about Churchill - it wasn't about Attlee. If you want to start a discussion about Attlee being a criminal and responsible for more than a million deaths, please present your argument and we'll consider it.
When did I say he was a criminal? But that his government was responsible for a million or so deaths (some estimates put it at two million) is hardly a controversial point. For some utterly bizarre reason, he seems to escape the blame that Blair, for example, gets.
I don't know enough about the event to come to a conclusion about Atlee's culpability on the spur of the moment, but I suspect that it's convenient that Mountbatten was involved. You can see why he would be an appealing fall-guy for those wanting to protect Atlee's reputation.
Where the balance of blame lies between the two of them I could not say.
On the Brexit date, I think there's a scenario which isn't receiving enough attention, namely that we crash out without a deal, but with an agreed extension to give both sides a bit more time to put in place mitigating measures. My thinking here is that if it remains the case that parliament cannot agree anything because Labour continues to work with the ERG to block an orderly exit, then a few extra weeks to prepare would help the EU side as well as us.
That is the rational course for the UK to be following now. Namely, for the UK to leave on 29th March with the proviso that it makes a take it or leave it offer to the EU where the UK would continue as now for an agreed temporary period, perhaps for 3 or 6 months or even longer. If the EU did not play ball the UK would resort to the default of leaving on WTO terms. The EU might reject those terms up to 29th March in order to call our bluff, but they would accept them within a few days of our leaving.
In April, negotiations over a permanent deal could then resume. The difference would be that the negotiations would take place in a context where the UK had already left. By accepting that Brexit was a reality, the EU would for the first time be required to negotiate in good faith, rather than from the aim of trying to persuade the UK not to leave by simply offering the worst possible terms that we are bound to reject.
There is no such thing as "No Deal" Brexit. The question is whether a deal is reached before or after the UK leaves.
There is certainly such a thing as a potential 'No Deal' Brexit, the chaos of which would be immediate and extremely damaging. Of course you are right that the UK would then have to attempt to reach some other deal with the EU (albeit from a position of extreme weakness), but that would be extremely difficult because we'd no longer be working under the Article 50 provisions. Instead we'd be creating a new relationship from scratch (in EU treaty terms), and that would require a new treaty involving formal ratification by all 27 EU countries and including all the complications of getting it past the Walloon parliament and all that rigmarole. Ain't no way that can be done in a hurry.
Ironically I suspect the odds of us crashing out on 29th March isn't highly unlikely - it's possibly 50/50 based on the inability of Parliament to make a decision.
Fair enough! It's all about how one assesses the probabilities. No differences in opinion means no market and that would be very boring.
Pity you and I can't just bet with each other. I would give you MUCH better odds than the even money which you think is fair.
I'm on it from the 5-1 odds that were available back in January. My Question at the moment is do I cash out and go for a decent evening meal with the winnings or keep the bet open and hope for a weekend away.
Not so good for me, but then I have influences from the South and the North.
What about the midlands, me duck?
When I said North, I should have said Midlands. I don't use the word duck, but it's a word I heard a lot when growing up.
Duck was used a lot at my school, but where I actually lived — which was only 10 miles away — it wasn't used at all and people would think you were a bit weird if you did use it.
Context is everything. I would use words which I thought were 'proper' but heard 'improper' words around me all the time. Partly this was a class thing I suppose. You would also use some words to refer to other people but not oneself -nesh for example. But generally the result was pretty accurate for me.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
But Churchill was a Tory while Attlee was Labour - a party that sees itself as having a higher moral purpose.
Like tackling anti antisemitism in a robust fashion for example.......
I was amused at the completely different views on misogyny portrayed by Labour depending on the "tribe" of the person who had committed said misogynistic act.
Only socialists get to claim to be "on a journey" it seems
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.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
But Churchill was a Tory while Attlee was Labour - a party that sees itself as having a higher moral purpose.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
But Churchill was a Tory while Attlee was Labour - a party that sees itself as having a higher moral purpose.
Like tackling anti antisemitism in a robust fashion for example.......
I was amused at the completely different views on misogyny portrayed by Labour depending on the "tribe" of the person who had committed said misogynistic act.
Only socialists get to claim to be "on a journey" it seems
They like journeys. Especially the ones on trains to the the gulag archipelago.
Yes, that's interesting and it may be right. I'm not sure that we shall know much more about the political landscape until push comes to shove at the latest possible WA vote before 29th March - which I think will probably pass; but if not then, then it will pass soon after following a short agreed extension.
One tiny straw in the wind, apart from the fact that Kenneth Clarke voted for the WA which must mean at least that it is more or less sane, the WA as it now stands is the nearest thing available to kicking the can down the road, and it does so for quite a time. Nothing else does so with any sort of reliability. As Matt's cartoon MP said a few days ago 'The tin can won't kick itself down the road'. well, come 29th March indeed it won't so it's odds on TM's WA
+1
The EU summit on 21st March. Final 'deal' thrashed out. Then an extension to get it ratified and legislated.
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.
White Supremacist, certainly. Mass murderer, not really. One of the Greatest Britons that ever lived, but probably not The Greatest.
If you don't like mass murderer are you OK to compromise on War Criminal?
I don't think I would regard him as such, although had Germany won WWII, he would have been treated as one.
Surely it's the Duke of Wellington who is a war criminal.
If one were to regard Churchill as a war criminal, one would have to say the same of his Cabinet, FDR and Truman, and their Cabinets, Charles de Gaulle, and every prominent Western commander.
Interesting but needs a bit of clarification. If an extension is agreed then we have not crashed out, as we have not left the EU. Once there were an extension then any of the possibilities can still happen. Until we have left and become a 'Third Country' all then possibilities remain open. An extension cannot bind the future.
True, that's an important point. However, I was assuming it would be a fairly short extension and that therefore the UK political landscape wouldn't have changed to make a deal more palatable to parliament. As I think you are implying, though, the mere fact of the extension could nudge things in a different direction.
Yes, that's interesting and it may be right. I'm not sure that we shall know much more about the political landscape until push comes to shove at the latest possible WA vote before 29th March - which I think will probably pass; but if not then, then it will pass soon after following a short agreed extension.
One tiny straw in the wind, apart from the fact that Kenneth Clarke voted for the WA which must mean at least that it is more or less sane, the WA as it now stands is the nearest thing available to kicking the can down the road, and it does so for quite a time. Nothing else does so with any sort of reliability. As Matt's cartoon MP said a few days ago 'The tin can won't kick itself down the road'. well, come 29th March indeed it won't so it's odds on TM's WA!
It's indicative of the state of play and (no offence) the misunderstanding and confusion between the WA and the eventual final deal, that the WA is seen as kicking the can down the road whereas it is exactly that by design. It is a holding period during which a final deal can be negotiated.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
But Churchill was a Tory while Attlee was Labour - a party that sees itself as having a higher moral purpose.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
The conversation was wholly about Churchill - it wasn't about Attlee. If you want to start a discussion about Attlee being a criminal and responsible for more than a million deaths, please present your argument and we'll consider it.
When did I say he was a criminal? But that his government was responsible for a million or so deaths (some estimates put it at two million) is hardly a controversial point. For some utterly bizarre reason, he seems to escape the blame that Blair, for example, gets.
I don't know enough about the event to come to a conclusion about Atlee's culpability on the spur of the moment, but I suspect that it's convenient that Mountbatten was involved. You can see why he would be an appealing fall-guy for those wanting to protect Atlee's reputation.
Where the balance of blame lies between the two of them I could not say.
Attlee was PM of the Imperial power and ultimately responsible for how India obtained its independence. The buck stopped with him.
If you're the leader at the top, you take responsibility, even if you personally didn't write a note saying "I don't care if lots of Indians get killed".
That's what leadership means.
Attlee was in charge. His government oversaw a bloody partition of India which led to a large number of deaths. If Churchill can be blamed for a death which occurred in Wales when he was Home Secretary, then - using the same logic - Attlee can be blamed for the deaths caused by the way his government implemented partition.
If we want to be even more controversial his government can also be blamed for the deaths and rioting and general mess that occurred in Palestine while Britain still had the mandate over that unhappy country.
Or we can try and understand history a bit more intelligently. But that is not how McDonnell and Owen Jones and the other Twitteratis approached this. So they are being hoist by their own petard.
I'm on it from the 5-1 odds that were available back in January. My Question at the moment is do I cash out and go for a decent evening meal with the winnings or keep the bet open and hope for a weekend away.
Well obviously I would recommend that you close out and eat your profit.
But if you hold it as an emotional hedge against really NOT wanting No Deal to happen, then you have to run with it. If it amazes the likes of me by happening you will at least be dulling the pain with the weekend.
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.
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
The conversation was wholly about Churchill - it wasn't about Attlee. If you want to start a discussion about Attlee being a criminal and responsible for more than a million deaths, please present your argument and we'll consider it.
When did I say he was a criminal? But that his government was responsible for a million or so deaths (some estimates put it at two million) is hardly a controversial point. For some utterly bizarre reason, he seems to escape the blame that Blair, for example, gets.
I don't know enough about the event to come to a conclusion about Atlee's culpability on the spur of the moment, but I suspect that it's convenient that Mountbatten was involved. You can see why he would be an appealing fall-guy for those wanting to protect Atlee's reputation.
Where the balance of blame lies between the two of them I could not say.
Attlee was PM of the Imperial power and ultimately responsible for how India obtained its independence. The buck stopped with him.
If you're the leader at the top, you take responsibility, even if you personally didn't write a note saying "I don't care if lots of Indians get killed".
That's what leadership means.
Attlee was in charge. His government oversaw a bloody partition of India which led to a large number of deaths. If Churchill can be blamed for a death which occurred in Wales when he was Home Secretary, then - using the same logic - Attlee can be blamed for the deaths caused by the way his government implemented partition.
If we want to be even more controversial his government can also be blamed for the deaths and rioting and general mess that occurred in Palestine while Britain still had the mandate over that unhappy country.
Or we can try and understand history a bit more intelligently. But that is not how McDonnell and Owen Jones and the other Twitteratis approached this. So they are being hoist by their own petard.
I agree.
I cannot for the life of me think why they want to waste time on this? Where is the political benefit?
I can only think it is a distraction tactic to avoid talking about brexit splits in Labour circles.
Attlee was PM of the Imperial power and ultimately responsible for how India obtained its independence. The buck stopped with him.
If you're the leader at the top, you take responsibility, even if you personally didn't write a note saying "I don't care if lots of Indians get killed".
That's what leadership means.
Attlee was in charge. His government oversaw a bloody partition of India which led to a large number of deaths. If Churchill can be blamed for a death which occurred in Wales when he was Home Secretary, then - using the same logic - Attlee can be blamed for the deaths caused by the way his government implemented partition.
If we want to be even more controversial his government can also be blamed for the deaths and rioting and general mess that occurred in Palestine while Britain still had the mandate over that unhappy country.
Or we can try and understand history a bit more intelligently. But that is not how McDonnell and Owen Jones and the other Twitteratis approached this. So they are being hoist by their own petard.
The economic cost of winning WW2 wasn't understood, I think, by most at the time. We had won and deserved the fruits of victory - the trouble was, there weren't any. The Americans had us by the financials so to speak and Britain was forced to cut its coat according to its cloth.
We didn't de-colonialise - we cut and ran from the Indian Sub-Continent and the Middle East. It was an abdication of responsibility brought on by financial reality. The undercurrents of what happened in India started before WW2 but were greatly exacerbated by that conflict.
It's a complex story from which the British don't emerge well (along with other key players). I don't know what else a bankrupt country was to do.
On the Brexit date, I think there's a scenario which isn't receiving enough attention, namely that we crash out without a deal, but with an agreed extension to give both sides a bit more time to put in place mitigating measures. My thinking here is that if it remains the case that parliament cannot agree anything because Labour continues to work with the ERG to block an orderly exit, then a few extra weeks to prepare would help the EU side as well as us.
That is the rational course for the UK to be following now. Namely, for the UK to leave on 29th March with the proviso that it makes a take it or leave it offer to the EU where the UK would continue as now for an agreed temporary period, perhaps for 3 or 6 months or even longer. If the EU did not play ball the UK would resort to the default of leaving on WTO terms. The EU might reject those terms up to 29th March in order to call our bluff, but they would accept them within a few days of our leaving.
In April, negotiations over a permanent deal could then resume. The difference would be that the negotiations would take place in a context where the UK had already left. By accepting that Brexit was a reality, the EU would for the first time be required to negotiate in good faith, rather than from the aim of trying to persuade the UK not to leave by simply offering the worst possible terms that we are bound to reject.
There is no such thing as "No Deal" Brexit. The question is whether a deal is reached before or after the UK leaves.
That's basically the Brady Amendment position, isn't it?
Can it really be true that Irish politicians and commentators are so thick that they've only just realised that a no-deal Brexit means they get the worst possible version of the hard border that they insistence on their backstop is intended to avoid?
Can it really be true that Irish politicians and commentators are so thick that they've only just realised that a no-deal Brexit means they get the worst possible version of the hard border that they insistence on their backstop is intended to avoid?
How long do you think the UK could tolerate 'no deal' before coming to an agreement with the EU including the backstop?
So, Churchill was a villain, but Attlee - directly responsible for something like a million avoidable deaths, in peacetime, of people he was supposed to be looking after - wasn't?
But Churchill was a Tory while Attlee was Labour - a party that sees itself as having a higher moral purpose.
On the Brexit date, I think there's a scenario which isn't receiving enough attention, namely that we crash out without a deal, but with an agreed extension to give both sides a bit more time to put in place mitigating measures. My thinking here is that if it remains the case that parliament cannot agree anything because Labour continues to work with the ERG to block an orderly exit, then a few extra weeks to prepare would help the EU side as well as us.
That is the rational course for the UK to be following now. Namely, for the UK to leave on 29th March with the proviso that it makes a take it or leave it offer to the EU where the UK would continue as now for an agreed temporary period, perhaps for 3 or 6 months or even longer. If the EU did not play ball the UK would resort to the default of leaving on WTO terms. The EU might reject those terms up to 29th March in order to call our bluff, but they would accept them within a few days of our leaving.
In April, negotiations over a permanent deal could then resume. The difference would be that the negotiations would take place in a context where the UK had already left. By accepting that Brexit was a reality, the EU would for the first time be required to negotiate in good faith, rather than from the aim of trying to persuade the UK not to leave by simply offering the worst possible terms that we are bound to reject.
There is no such thing as "No Deal" Brexit. The question is whether a deal is reached before or after the UK leaves.
There is certainly such a thing as a potential 'No Deal' Brexit, the chaos of which would be immediate and extremely damaging. Of course you are right that the UK would then have to attempt to reach some other deal with the EU (albeit from a position of extreme weakness), but that would be extremely difficult because we'd no longer be working under the Article 50 provisions. Instead we'd be creating a new relationship from scratch (in EU treaty terms), and that would require a new treaty involving formal ratification by all 27 EU countries and including all the complications of getting it past the Walloon parliament and all that rigmarole. Ain't no way that can be done in a hurry.
The wording of A50 implies that the WA could be agreed and implemented even after the former member state has left, and that the A50 procedure applies, whether before or after departure.
Attlee was PM of the Imperial power and ultimately responsible for how India obtained its independence. The buck stopped with him.
If you're the leader at the top, you take responsibility, even if you personally didn't write a note saying "I don't care if lots of Indians get killed".
That's what leadership means.
Attlee was in charge. His government oversaw a bloody partition of India which led to a large number of deaths. If Churchill can be blamed for a death which occurred in Wales when he was Home Secretary, then - using the same logic - Attlee can be blamed for the deaths caused by the way his government implemented partition.
If we want to be even more controversial his government can also be blamed for the deaths and rioting and general mess that occurred in Palestine while Britain still had the mandate over that unhappy country.
Or we can try and understand history a bit more intelligently. But that is not how McDonnell and Owen Jones and the other Twitteratis approached this. So they are being hoist by their own petard.
The economic cost of winning WW2 wasn't understood, I think, by most at the time. We had won and deserved the fruits of victory - the trouble was, there weren't any. The Americans had us by the financials so to speak and Britain was forced to cut its coat according to its cloth.
We didn't de-colonialise - we cut and ran from the Indian Sub-Continent and the Middle East. It was an abdication of responsibility brought on by financial reality. The undercurrents of what happened in India started before WW2 but were greatly exacerbated by that conflict.
It's a complex story from which the British don't emerge well (along with other key players). I don't know what else a bankrupt country was to do.
True. There's a line in that Henderson despatch I referred to in my header the other day which sums it up well -
"Although we were victorious we were only marginally victorious; we did not have the spur that defeat might have provided, nor did we have the strength with which victory should have endowed us."
The wording of A50 implies that the WA could be agreed and implemented even after the former member state has left, and that the A50 procedure applies, whether before or after departure.
Possibly, but I certainly wouldn't want to rely on that.
Attlee was PM of the Imperial power and ultimately responsible for how India obtained its independence. The buck stopped with him.
If you're the leader at the top, you take responsibility, even if you personally didn't write a note saying "I don't care if lots of Indians get killed".
That's what leadership means.
Attlee was in charge. His government oversaw a bloody partition of India which led to a large number of deaths. If Churchill can be blamed for a death which occurred in Wales when he was Home Secretary, then - using the same logic - Attlee can be blamed for the deaths caused by the way his government implemented partition.
If we want to be even more controversial his government can also be blamed for the deaths and rioting and general mess that occurred in Palestine while Britain still had the mandate over that unhappy country.
Or we can try and understand history a bit more intelligently. But that is not how McDonnell and Owen Jones and the other Twitteratis approached this. So they are being hoist by their own petard.
The economic cost of winning WW2 wasn't understood, I think, by most at the time. We had won and deserved the fruits of victory - the trouble was, there weren't any. The Americans had us by the financials so to speak and Britain was forced to cut its coat according to its cloth.
We didn't de-colonialise - we cut and ran from the Indian Sub-Continent and the Middle East. It was an abdication of responsibility brought on by financial reality. The undercurrents of what happened in India started before WW2 but were greatly exacerbated by that conflict.
It's a complex story from which the British don't emerge well (along with other key players). I don't know what else a bankrupt country was to do.
True. There's a line in that Henderson despatch I referred to in my header the other day which sums it up well -
"Although we were victorious we were only marginally victorious; we did not have the spur that defeat might have provided, nor did we have the strength with which victory should have endowed us."
That's why it was so tragic that Attlee shunned the Schuman plan. The process of peaceful European integration should have been something we felt we had a direct stake in and been positioned as the fruits of victory.
As an aside, Crown of Blood, the final part of a trilogy by me, should be coming out in a month or two.
I think the medieval brutality, treachery, and magic is fine, but I'm worried readers might find multiple competent people vying to rule a kingdom a bit unrealistic
Can it really be true that Irish politicians and commentators are so thick that they've only just realised that a no-deal Brexit means they get the worst possible version of the hard border that they insistence on their backstop is intended to avoid?
Given that we have elected politicians who believe an unplanned exit to WTO is OK I am not sure we can criticise
Attlee was PM of the Imperial power and ultimately responsible for how India obtained its independence. The buck stopped with him.
If you're the leader at the top, you take responsibility, even if you personally didn't write a note saying "I don't care if lots of Indians get killed".
That's what leadership means.
Attlee was in charge. His government oversaw a bloody partition of India which led to a large number of deaths. If Churchill can be blamed for a death which occurred in Wales when he was Home Secretary, then - using the same logic - Attlee can be blamed for the deaths caused by the way his government implemented partition.
If we want to be even more controversial his government can also be blamed for the deaths and rioting and general mess that occurred in Palestine while Britain still had the mandate over that unhappy country.
Or we can try and understand history a bit more intelligently. But that is not how McDonnell and Owen Jones and the other Twitteratis approached this. So they are being hoist by their own petard.
The economic cost of winning WW2 wasn't understood, I think, by most at the time. We had won and deserved the fruits of victory - the trouble was, there weren't any. The Americans had us by the financials so to speak and Britain was forced to cut its coat according to its cloth.
We didn't de-colonialise - we cut and ran from the Indian Sub-Continent and the Middle East. It was an abdication of responsibility brought on by financial reality. The undercurrents of what happened in India started before WW2 but were greatly exacerbated by that conflict.
It's a complex story from which the British don't emerge well (along with other key players). I don't know what else a bankrupt country was to do.
As an aside, if India had not been partitioned, the all else being equal (which is an heroic assumption), it would be the most populous country in the world now.
More likely, the kind of forces that prompted division in the first place, and then the Bangladeshi independence, would still have found an outlet resulting in violence, possibly very extreme violence.
Can it really be true that Irish politicians and commentators are so thick that they've only just realised that a no-deal Brexit means they get the worst possible version of the hard border that they insistence on their backstop is intended to avoid?
Given that we have elected politicians who believe an unplanned exit to WTO is OK I am not sure we can criticise
True. Brexit seems to have addled brains on all sides.
Can it really be true that Irish politicians and commentators are so thick that they've only just realised that a no-deal Brexit means they get the worst possible version of the hard border that they insistence on their backstop is intended to avoid?
You really think they are that much better than our own muppets?
That's extremely interesting : the EU has basically said to Ireland, yes we will publicly support you over the backstop, but if it causes No Deal, then you will be the ones who lose out.
If Ireland backs down, then Theresa May's deal could end up going through very quickly.
Can it really be true that Irish politicians and commentators are so thick that they've only just realised that a no-deal Brexit means they get the worst possible version of the hard border that they insistence on their backstop is intended to avoid?
Paddy's are thick? You are Bernard Manning and I claim my £5!
There is a difference between a hard border forced on Ireland by a truculent Westminster, and one chosen by Ireland. This has major implications on the Irish, effectively re-partitioning, and that was once sufficient to cause an Irish civil war between 26 and 32 county factions.
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.
White Supremacist, certainly. Mass murderer, not really. One of the Greatest Britons that ever lived, but probably not The Greatest.
If you don't like mass murderer are you OK to compromise on War Criminal?
I don't think I would regard him as such, although had Germany won WWII, he would have been treated as one.
Surely it's the Duke of Wellington who is a war criminal.
If one were to regard Churchill as a war criminal, one would have to say the same of his Cabinet, FDR and Truman, and their Cabinets, Charles de Gaulle, and every prominent Western commander.
Probably not de Gaulle, whose overall role in the war was too trivial (although what the French got up to in the Middle East was grubby).
But there was a reason why the Allies never prosecuted the Nazis for carpet bombing or other equivalent long-/medium- range actions against civilian populations.
Attlee was PM of the Imperial power and ultimately responsible for how India obtained its independence. The buck stopped with him.
If you're the leader at the top, you take responsibility, even if you personally didn't write a note saying "I don't care if lots of Indians get killed".
That's what leadership means.
Attlee was in charge. His government oversaw a bloody partition of India which led to a large number of deaths. If Churchill can be blamed for a death which occurred in Wales when he was Home Secretary, then - using the same logic - Attlee can be blamed for the deaths caused by the way his government implemented partition.
If we want to be even more controversial his government can also be blamed for the deaths and rioting and general mess that occurred in Palestine while Britain still had the mandate over that unhappy country.
Or we can try and understand history a bit more intelligently. But that is not how McDonnell and Owen Jones and the other Twitteratis approached this. So they are being hoist by their own petard.
The economic cost of winning WW2 wasn't understood, I think, by most at the time. We had won and deserved the fruits of victory - the trouble was, there weren't any. The Americans had us by the financials so to speak and Britain was forced to cut its coat according to its cloth.
We didn't de-colonialise - we cut and ran from the Indian Sub-Continent and the Middle East. It was an abdication of responsibility brought on by financial reality. The undercurrents of what happened in India started before WW2 but were greatly exacerbated by that conflict.
It's a complex story from which the British don't emerge well (along with other key players). I don't know what else a bankrupt country was to do.
True. There's a line in that Henderson despatch I referred to in my header the other day which sums it up well -
"Although we were victorious we were only marginally victorious; we did not have the spur that defeat might have provided, nor did we have the strength with which victory should have endowed us."
That's why it was so tragic that Attlee shunned the Schuman plan. The process of peaceful European integration should have been something we felt we had a direct stake in and been positioned as the fruits of victory.
Attlee was keen to develop the United Nations as a Sigle world government instead. He was more ambitious.
That's extremely interesting : the EU has basically said to Ireland, yes we will publicly support you over the backstop, but if it causes No Deal, then you will be the ones who lose out.
If Ireland backs down, then Theresa May's deal could end up going through very quickly.
Dr. Foxy, you probably saw this already, but in case you, or others, didn't, recent polling from perhaps a fortnight ago indicated 79% of Irishmen supported holding out for the backstop, even should it lead to a hard border.
Paddy's are thick? You are Bernard Manning and I claim my £5!
There is a difference between a hard border forced on Ireland by a truculent Westminster, and one chosen by Ireland. This has major implications on the Irish, effectively re-partitioning, and that was once sufficient to cause an Irish civil war between 26 and 32 county factions.
This hard border (if it happens) will have been partially chosen by Ireland. If they had been constructive rather than dogmatic, the deal might well have gone through and the EU might now be doing what it should have started doing two years ago: negotiating a sensible long-term relationship.
Paddy's are thick? You are Bernard Manning and I claim my £5!
There is a difference between a hard border forced on Ireland by a truculent Westminster, and one chosen by Ireland. This has major implications on the Irish, effectively re-partitioning, and that was once sufficient to cause an Irish civil war between 26 and 32 county factions.
This hard border (if it happens) will have been partially chosen by Ireland. If they had been constructive rather than dogmatic, the deal might well have gone through and the EU might now be doing what it should have done two years ago: negotiating a sensible long-term relationship.
As you are so fond of asking wrt those no deal "preparations", Richard - what would you have had them do?
As an aside, Crown of Blood, the final part of a trilogy by me, should be coming out in a month or two.
I think the medieval brutality, treachery, and magic is fine, but I'm worried readers might find multiple competent people vying to rule a kingdom a bit unrealistic
It's striking that if you compare British comedy (think Peep Show) with American comedy (think BoJack Horseman) that even when there are similarities (central characters with no moral compass, substance abuse problems, etc) they always tend to have the same difference - in the US the main characters will be rich and successful, whereas in Britain they will be losers.
So hopefully you will find success with American readers.
Comments
Stop pratting around Dems, you can't win without someone who can reach out to the old rust belt blue collar Trumpians!!!
I'm not convinced that Trump wouldn't flatten Harris for example.
Happy to be corrected by any US experts on here.
Thanking you in advance.
Because of all the smoke and mirrors so far there has been amazingly little discussion of what happens afterwards. Like the campaign to rejoin starts within days...…..and plenty more to speculate on.
Negotiations for reaching a phythosanitary agreement, like the phytosanitary agreement in CETA, should have been part of the trade talks.
It was the insistance upon dealing with Ireland without dealing with trade, which is impossible, which has caused this mess.
Overarching everything is how terrible a political leader she is, worse than Brown and that's saying something.
For the UK replacing the backstop is workable. Parliament has voted for that. Compared to no deal replacing the backstop is sensible.
For reasons of dogma alone the EU aren't prepared to and are prepared to risk no deal it seems at the moment.
Though I seriously doubt that evidence against Trump strong enough to persuade Pelosi to take the gamble of backing impeachment would allow his nomination in 2020.
There is a similar risk re Trump but the core of the allegations are of a substantially more serious nature - colluding with a foreign and hostile power to affect an election. Certainly there's a risk that could go wrong for the Dems but a purely partisan defence in light of damning evidence (should there be any) could be at least as bad for the Republicans.
The allegations against Trump, if proven, do so.
No Deal 55%
May's Deal 30%
Different Deal (other than tinkerings) 5%
Revoke 10%
I'd stick with that for now.
What I think more likely is that there is a short extension, which doesn't take us into the next European parliament period, to try and provide enough extra time to get the deal done, but then we no deal at the end of that because it proves much less acceptable to have an extension into the new Parliament.
The opposition MPs oppose it because they're putting party over country.
I read a few years ago his autobiography of his youth, My Early Life, which was subsequently made into a film - Young Winston. Quite a rollacoster adventure.
He was in the Cavalry in India and managed to get himself sent to a war against the Afghans in 1897 (as well as writing as a war reporter for the Telegraph).
It was his subsequent exploits in the Boer War that made him a household name.
It was warm when I was out for a walk earlier. Most disconcerting.
Pity you and I can't just bet with each other. I would give you MUCH better odds than the even money which you think is fair.
In April, negotiations over a permanent deal could then resume. The difference would be that the negotiations would take place in a context where the UK had already left. By accepting that Brexit was a reality, the EU would for the first time be required to negotiate in good faith, rather than from the aim of trying to persuade the UK not to leave by simply offering the worst possible terms that we are bound to reject.
There is no such thing as "No Deal" Brexit. The question is whether a deal is reached before or after the UK leaves.
One tiny straw in the wind, apart from the fact that Kenneth Clarke voted for the WA which must mean at least that it is more or less sane, the WA as it now stands is the nearest thing available to kicking the can down the road, and it does so for quite a time. Nothing else does so with any sort of reliability. As Matt's cartoon MP said a few days ago 'The tin can won't kick itself down the road'. well, come 29th March indeed it won't so it's odds on TM's WA!
Where the balance of blame lies between the two of them I could not say.
Thoughts turn to where to spend Christmas this year.
Instant ban surely?
I was amused at the completely different views on misogyny portrayed by Labour depending on the "tribe" of the person who had committed said misogynistic act.
Only socialists get to claim to be "on a journey" it seems
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/430154-former-mass-governor-takes-step-toward-trump-primary-challenge
The EU summit on 21st March. Final 'deal' thrashed out. Then an extension to get it ratified and legislated.
This is the sort of thing I envisage.
If you're the leader at the top, you take responsibility, even if you personally didn't write a note saying "I don't care if lots of Indians get killed".
That's what leadership means.
Attlee was in charge. His government oversaw a bloody partition of India which led to a large number of deaths. If Churchill can be blamed for a death which occurred in Wales when he was Home Secretary, then - using the same logic - Attlee can be blamed for the deaths caused by the way his government implemented partition.
If we want to be even more controversial his government can also be blamed for the deaths and rioting and general mess that occurred in Palestine while Britain still had the mandate over that unhappy country.
Or we can try and understand history a bit more intelligently. But that is not how McDonnell and Owen Jones and the other Twitteratis approached this. So they are being hoist by their own petard.
But if you hold it as an emotional hedge against really NOT wanting No Deal to happen, then you have to run with it. If it amazes the likes of me by happening you will at least be dulling the pain with the weekend.
But, no, cash it out. You will thank me.
Just like the mid terms it is about turnout.
I cannot for the life of me think why they want to waste time on this? Where is the political benefit?
I can only think it is a distraction tactic to avoid talking about brexit splits in Labour circles.
We didn't de-colonialise - we cut and ran from the Indian Sub-Continent and the Middle East. It was an abdication of responsibility brought on by financial reality. The undercurrents of what happened in India started before WW2 but were greatly exacerbated by that conflict.
It's a complex story from which the British don't emerge well (along with other key players). I don't know what else a bankrupt country was to do.
"Although we were victorious we were only marginally victorious; we did not have the spur that defeat might have provided, nor did we have the strength with which victory should have endowed us."
I think the medieval brutality, treachery, and magic is fine, but I'm worried readers might find multiple competent people vying to rule a kingdom a bit unrealistic
More likely, the kind of forces that prompted division in the first place, and then the Bangladeshi independence, would still have found an outlet resulting in violence, possibly very extreme violence.
If Ireland backs down, then Theresa May's deal could end up going through very quickly.
There is a difference between a hard border forced on Ireland by a truculent Westminster, and one chosen by Ireland. This has major implications on the Irish, effectively re-partitioning, and that was once sufficient to cause an Irish civil war between 26 and 32 county factions.
But there was a reason why the Allies never prosecuted the Nazis for carpet bombing or other equivalent long-/medium- range actions against civilian populations.
Be interesting to see if that stat changes.
So hopefully you will find success with American readers.